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

[Metaphor]

So your claim about Mr. Starmer is false.

No. He didn't say what a woman was.

Again you do not know what their ability to say is. So your statement. "they can't say what a woman is " is unproven opinion.

They were given a chance to say. More than one. Either they can't say, or they won't.

Thank you for the explanation. Frankly, I didn't recognize it as satire or as a rhetorical device. I saw it as just plain fucking moronic.

Yes, I thought you might need some help.

 

[Arctish]

If you are passing legislation about sex, you damn well better know what a woman is and be willing to share your understanding.

Today I learned that refusing to engage with bad faith journalists from a tabloid rag is exactly the same as not knowing what a woman is. I am learning so much from your rage boner against nuanced gender.

I am learning so much about how much effort gender cultists will expend in avoiding answering questions about the ideology they wish to impose on others.

So you instead you get to impose your ideology on others.

Oh yes. My ideology that there are two sexes and humans cannot change sex? That isn't an ideology. Those are facts.

There were two sex designations in the English language before the addition of the word 'intersex' to describe individuals who have various sexual traits that don't fit in the previous categories. So right now there are three recognized 'sexes' in the English speaking diaspora, and there may be more in the future.

If you think you can accurately assign intersex individuals into the 'male' and 'female' sex designations, go ahead and start with Ms. Haynes and her XY karyotype and functional uterus.

 

[Metaphor]

If you are passing legislation about sex, you damn well better know what a woman is and be willing to share your understanding.

Today I learned that refusing to engage with bad faith journalists from a tabloid rag is exactly the same as not knowing what a woman is. I am learning so much from your rage boner against nuanced gender.

I am learning so much about how much effort gender cultists will expend in avoiding answering questions about the ideology they wish to impose on others.

So you instead you get to impose your ideology on others.

Oh yes. My ideology that there are two sexes and humans cannot change sex? That isn't an ideology. Those are facts.

There were two sex designations in the English language before the addition of the word 'intersex' to describe individuals who have various sexual traits that don't fit in the previous categories.

Intersex people are still male or female. They have disorders of sexual development.

There is no third sex that produces a third type of gamete.

So right now there are three recognized 'sexes' in the English speaking diaspora, and there may be more in the future.

There are two sexes. But, even if we were to pretend that people with differences of sexual development were a third sex, that would mean they were a third sex, and it would have nothing to do with their "gender identity", or whatever religious belief the gender cultists have.

If you think you can accurately assign intersex individuals into the 'male' and 'female' sex designations, go ahead and start with Ms. Haynes and her XY karyotype and functional uterus.

I don't have to do anything. I am not a biologist, nor does anybody's intersex status mean that the claims of gender cultists should be paid attention to. If there were no intersex people, gender cultists would still demand that we believe fantasies, such as that an adult human male with no disorder of sexual development whatever is a woman if he says he is a woman.

Intersex status is a furphy. Intersex individuals cannot make adult human females out of adult human males.

 

[Jarhyn]

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".

The law should leave matters of what to name things in the vernacular to the vernacular and use sterile words itself.

It shouldn't define what a "man" is. Nor a "woman". That is the very definition of sex essentialism! That's not a game anyone really wins.

To that end, the whole thread seems like a backhanded accusation, spin over doing what the UK Labor party thinks they are supposed to do.

Perhaps legislating on hormonal realities, or on the basis of history of behavior, but never about the shape of non-neural flesh.

 

[Metaphor]

Perhaps legislating on hormonal realities, or on the basis of history of behavior, but never about the shape of non-neural flesh.

Okay luv. It's sometimes proper to pass legislation based on "hormonal realities" but not on "non-neural flesh".

Of course, you also support the State punishing people for not using "preferred pronouns", even though you claim you don't think the law should define 'man' or 'woman'. I'm sure that makes sense in your head.

 

[Jarhyn]

[Y]ou... support the State punishing people for not using "preferred pronouns"...

No I don't.

This is a category error you are making, and a Straw-Man argument.

I support the state punishing the state and members thereof for publicly revealing information which falls under privacy. People have a right to fair and normal treatment, which today includes being respected by your boss and coworkers. I support the state taking measures against state workplace hostilities, and against hostilities engaged in by the state against the public.

I support any person speaking out against any person (speaking out against, mind, not "punishing"), who fails to maintain such decorum in general.

This is not the same as the state punishing people over "pronouns", it is merely the state doing what it must to keep it's skin out of that game, and people doing what they must to not get dragged into stupid games in general.

We don't need to play "Hi I'm John, my pronouns are (they have a dick)". It's not even a game people are going to remain very good at, when people can now decide of their own rights and power which hormonal reality to experience. And it's a shitty game to drag others into.

Mostly because if I want to know if John has a dick, I can take John on a couple of dates or maybe if I'm really lucky, John will just tell me. In this way, being told what genitals someone has in fact be ones a useful clue in interacting: that they have opened the door to more context.

Of course here you are in a thread loudly demanding that people, the state, even, start talking about what genitals people have.

 

[Metaphor]

I support the state punishing the state and members thereof for publicly revealing information which falls under privacy. People have a right to fair and normal treatment, which today includes being respected by your boss and coworkers. I support the state taking measures against state workplace hostilities, and against hostilities engaged in by the state against the public.

Yes, as I said, you support the State enforcement of preferred pronouns.

You repeat your delusion that people who are "misgendered" have had private information revealed unfairly.

 

[Jarhyn]

I support the state punishing the state and members thereof for publicly revealing information which falls under privacy. People have a right to fair and normal treatment, which today includes being respected by your boss and coworkers. I support the state taking measures against state workplace hostilities, and against hostilities engaged in by the state against the public.

Yes, as I said, you support the State enforcement of preferred pronouns.

You repeat your delusion that people who are "misgendered" have had private information revealed unfairly.

So, you are then stating that not using the preferred pronouns of people creates a hostile workplace.

You are arguing for the right to make a workplace hostile, to both employees and the public, so that people at that workplace will freely discuss each other's genital configurations rather than social identities as befits people.

You are under a misconception of what "private" means in this context.

Private in these contexts does not mean "unrevealed by nature".

Instead, private means, contextually , "none of your actual business".

 

[laughing dog]

So your claim about Mr. Starmer is false.

No. He didn't say what a woman was.

You claimed he couldn’t, not that he didn’t.

They were given a chance to say. More than one. Either they can't say, or they won't.

Now that you acknowledge the actual situation, try not to repeat your blatant misrepresentation.

 

[TomC]

They were given a chance to say. More than one. Either they can't say, or they won't.

Based on the OP, I'm confident it was far more "won't" than "can't". And a perfectly valid reason was given, "I don't want what we're here to do derailed". The term used was "down that rabbit hole". People familiar with idiomatic English understood that term.

Here's the thing. Nobody can define woman with mathematical precision. Not even you. It's easy to define "woman" for the vast majority of purposes. But a trollish "journalist" could derail the job at hand by getting all pedantic. That looks like what was going on there.

For an example of the sort of rabbit hole that was being referred to just look at this thread. And the many others like it.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

So, you are then stating that not using the preferred pronouns of people creates a hostile workplace.

No. How you can imagine I said or implied that I do not know.

The people demanding preferred pronouns are creating the hostile workplace. They are demanding others follow their religion or face the ruination of their livelihoods for refusing. They are making extra cognitive demands on others who may not be able to easily comply, such as those with disability or those who have English as a second language.

You are arguing for the right to make a workplace hostile, to both employees and the public, so that people at that workplace will freely discuss each other's genital configurations rather than social identities as befits people.

You and Toni can discuss people's genital configurations to your heart's content. You are both obsessed with them.

You are under a misconception of what "private" means in this context.

Private in these contexts does not mean "unrevealed by nature".

Instead, private means, contextually , "none of your actual business".

You have it exactly backwards, as you usually do.

A preferred pronoun that conflicts with the sex of the person is, in fact, the private information. I'd have no idea you were wizardgender until you made this piece of information known to all and sundry. Preferred pronouns reveal what people think their personality is. I don't care what you think of your own personality.

It is the ones creating the religious and cognitive demands on others advancing the hostile workplace.

 

[Metaphor]

You claimed he couldn’t, not that he didn’t.

When Starmer does, in fact, explain what a woman is, I'll update the thread. But he can't explain what a woman is, because he has already betrayed he what a woman is.

Now that you acknowledge the actual situation, try not to repeat your blatant misrepresentation.

Starmer can't explain what a woman is because he doesn't know what a woman is.

UK Labour has kicked women out of its party when those women express doubt that men who identify as women are women.

 

[Metaphor]

Here's the thing. Nobody can define woman with mathematical precision. Not even you. It's easy to define "woman" for the vast majority of purposes. But a trollish "journalist" could derail the job at hand by getting all pedantic. That looks like what was going on there.

All she had to do was give a non-circular definition. If somebody asks me for a non-circular definition, I can easily provide it.

 

[Patooka]

All she had to do was give a non-circular definition

Bullshit. Just because you are clearly oblivious to trollish journalism when it suits your narrative doesn't mean the rest of us are.

 

[Metaphor]

All she had to do was give a non-circular definition

Bullshit. Just because you are clearly oblivious to trollish journalism when it suits your narrative doesn't mean the rest of us are.

A troll is somebody who says something they don't believe solely to shit stir. Asking somebody to provide the definition of an area they are legislating on isn't trolling behaviour.

 

[laughing dog]

You claimed he couldn’t, not that he didn’t.

When Starmer does, in fact, explain what a woman is, I'll update the thread. But he can't explain what a woman is, because he has already betrayed he what a woman is.

As written, that makes no sense. Strangely, it is a vast improvement in your argument.

Starmer can't explain what a woman is because he doesn't know what a woman is.

You keep conflating your opinion with fact. You cannot possibly know what Mr Starmer knows or does not know.

UK Labour has kicked women out of its party when those women express doubt that men who identify as women are women.

Nice non—sequitur.

 

[Metaphor]

As written, that makes no sense. Strangely, it is a vast improvement in your argument.

Words were missing, probably disappeared when I selected them to italicise them . It should have read "Starmer can't say what a woman is, because he has already betrayed that he does not know what a woman is."

You keep conflating your opinion with fact. You cannot possibly know what Mr Starmer knows or does not know.

Either Mr Starmer does know what a woman is and is deliberately lying about it, or he does not know what a woman is.

Nice non—sequitur.

Kicking people out for noncompliance with the gender cultist dogma is the exact behaviour you would expect from people who do not know what a woman is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

Words were missing, probably disappeared when I selected them to italicise them . It should have read "Starmer can't say what a woman is, because he has already betrayed that he does not know what a woman is."

Your unsubstantiated opinion is not fact.

Either Mr Starmer does know what a woman is and is deliberately lying about it, or he does not know what a woman is.

Or he refuses to gotcha games with gender bigots.

Kicking people out for noncompliance with the gender cultist dogma is the exact behaviour you would expect from people who do not know what a woman is.

Assuming your representation is accurate (an assumption not born out by your posts in this thread), maybe it is what a gender bigot would expect, but not others.

 

[Metaphor]

Or he refuses to gotcha games with gender bigots.

What is your definition of a gender bigot?

Assuming your representation is accurate (an assumption not born out by your posts in this thread), maybe it is what a gender bigot would expect, but not others.

What's a gender bigot?