Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes women. Adult human females i.e. not biological males.



How is it not an exclusive definition of women?


The definition given of women does describe all women.




Yes how they are used. And that is how people use the word. To specify adults, who are female. It only a tiny minority of ideologues who do not.


Irrelevant. You can call a trans-woman a woman all you want, but it is an incorrect description. Like calling something that is black, white.


This will be amazing I'm sure.

It's not an exclusive definition because it doesn't include trans women who are women.

Bannasidhe

Gruffalox wrote: »

Well who likes wallys?

There's no accounting for taste.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Eh well I don't believe any of the above so.......

My position is based on a combination of science, psychology, philosophy, and linguistics.

I am discussing how we understand concepts and attach words to these concepts.

For example, no child learns what a table is from being provided a definition of table. They see objects with common patterns and derive mental representations (conceptualizations) of these objects. These mental representations get their names not from dictionary definitions but from other people referring to that object. The child has a mental representations of something and a parent (for example) points to it and says "table" and that's how a child understands table.

The only time a definition exactly matches a concept is when the concept is invented at the same time as someone defines it. Basically when a new item is invented or a new phenomenon is discovered. Even then the definition and conceptualization may shift once the general population starts to use the words.

Any word that is commonly used before science has a go at defining it will rarely if ever match the definition. There are always fuzzy boundaries and exceptions to the rule, as I have shown with tables.

This has absolutely nothing in common with deconstructionism. It's not that nothing can be defined. It's that very few things can be defined exclusively, and people should not use their pretend definitions to wage a political battle that will curb people's rights.

But women and females can be described exclusively. And this debate of 'trans-women are women' is removed from the political battle for me. The reason I object to it is because it isn't true. It's only political for you.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's not an exclusive definition because it doesn't include trans women who are women.

But that is circular logic. It doesn't include them because they aren't women. They are male. Also what you have said doesn't make sense. You are saying it isn't exclusive because it doesn't include.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But women and females can be described exclusively. And this debate of 'trans-women are women' is removed from the political battle for me. The reason I object to it is because it isn't true. It's only political for you.

Your definition of women does not inclide trans women who are women so you have not defined women exclusively.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your definition of women does not inclide trans women who are women so you have not defined women exclusively.

Yes because they aren't women. And again, you are saying that something hasn't been exclusively defined because it doesn't include. That doesn't make sense.

Hand in Your Pants

Gruffalox wrote: »

The whole effing point is deconstructionism tries to remove EVERY idea prior to it in the history of ideas

This is a gross misunderstanding of what deconstruction is. Deconconstruction involves close reading of texts and their reinterpretation across a wide spectrum of fields. The past is implicit in the present.

Gruffalox wrote: »

It is nihilistic in the extreme

Depends what you mean by nihilistic. I've found a lot of joie de vivre reading Nietzche, Lyotard, Paul de Man etc.

Bannasidhe

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

so just because he had a dick she should have been attracted to him? is this some weird 'incel' logic...?

Yes. :rolleyes:

It is apparently the main thing that cis straight women look for.

I wouldn't know myself tbh. I can only go by what I'm told when it comes to heterosexual mating rituals and genitals seem to feature as #1.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But that is circular logic. It doesn't include them because they aren't women. They are male. Also what you have said doesn't make sense. You are saying it isn't exclusive because it doesn't include.

I'm not saying it's not an exclusive definition. It is an exclusive definition of a category of individuals who IN YOUR OPINION are the only individuals that the word woman describes.

However it is not an exclusive definition of women. Neither you, nor scientists get to decide what other people think the word women describes.

Rodin

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's not an exclusive definition because it doesn't include trans women who are women.

Why don't we ask biological females if transwomen are women?

Aren't we all about democracy?

I certainly don't consider a biological female becoming a transman as being a man like me. I just don't.

Rodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes. :rolleyes:

It is apparently the main thing that cis straight women look for.

I wouldn't know myself tbh. I can only go by what I'm told when it comes to heterosexual mating rituals and genitals seem to feature as #1.

Often looking for a penis because they want to procreate.

KiKi III

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not saying it's not an exclusive definition. It is an exclusive definition of a category of individuals who IN YOUR OPINION are the only individuals that the word woman describes.

However it is not an exclusive definition of women. Neither you, nor scientists get to decide what other people think the word women describes.

Words are meaningless without a common agreement on what their definitions. The vast majority of people would agree that “adult human female” is the definition of woman, and for most trans women are a separate but related category.

LLMMLL

Rodin wrote: »

Why don't we ask biological females if transwomen are women?

Aren't we all about democracy?

I certainly don't consider a biological female becoming a transman as being a man like me. I just don't.

It's a little egocentric to think that as a cis man you get to decide what constitutes being a man.

You're absolutely free to have an opinion on the topic and debate to the death but you don't have any ownership over the concept.

Quantum Erasure

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes. :rolleyes:

It is apparently the main thing that cis straight women look for.

I wouldn't know myself tbh. I can only go by what I'm told when it comes to heterosexual mating rituals and genitals seem to feature as #1.

no-one said it's the main thing...

so can I take it you're a lesbian, if you don't mind me asking?

would you mind touching a female penis, if your potential partner asked?

mc25

Rodin wrote: »

Why don't we ask biological females if transwomen are women?

Aren't we all about democracy?

I certainly don't consider a biological female becoming a transman as being a man like me. I just don't.

Biological female as per your definition here, transwomen are women

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not saying it's not an exclusive definition. It is an exclusive definition of a category of individuals who IN YOUR OPINION are the only individuals that the word woman describes.

However it is not an exclusive definition of women. Neither you, nor scientists get to decide what other people think the word women describes.

It is an exclusive definition. It excludes anyone who isn't female. That's what to be exclusive means:

excluding or not admitting other things

You are now telling me it isn't exclusive because it doesn't include those who are male. It makes absolutely no sense. Or are you now going to tell me that the definition of exclusive is only MY OPINION aswell?

Anyhow, It is not MY OPINION. I have already linked you the definitions in 3 different dictionaries. Even if we are to go along with what you have said in your last sentence, a decision as to what something is has to be made. Otherwise nothing will have any meaning, if one person's meaning differs to the next. You descend into farce. And the meaning of women is clear.

A woman is an adult human female.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

And if anyone ever wants to hear someone dish the dirt on deconstructionism them Camille Paglia, famous scholar, lesbian and upholder of biological truth and reason against radical trans ideology, is available to watch on videos. She is as difficult to listen to as the snuffling Slavoj Zizek (who I dislike) because of her verbal tics and intellectual impatience, but the brilliant contempt she heaps about the sh1theap that is deconstructionism is worth it for as long as you can take her. Especially her contempt for Foucault, the disturbed, death obsessed man for whom the Marquis de Sade was a hero who did not go far enough.

Camille Paglia is difficult to take in any form as she’s a dose, frankly. That notwithstanding, Camille Paglia is not an authority on how anyone but herself is to define themselves, and their authority to do that comes from Human Rights Law, not science.

That’s why as much as you imagine it’s clever to repeat ad nauseum that one cannot change their sex, one cannot identify themselves as either a man or a woman or someone who does not identify with the gender binary paradigm at all, nobody can be compelled to adhere to your standards and rigid definitions. It’s by your own standards that you attempted to define female and woman according to their genitalia, when in reality there is much more which influences concepts such as womanhood, manhood, personhood, etc, encompassing a broad range of philosophical and political beliefs.

Disagreement with you is not an attempt to shut you down, nor is refusing to recognise your self-appointed authority to define what female, male, woman or man must mean to everyone else. This idea some people have that other people must adhere to their definitions and standards in describing their experiences is a nonsense perpetuated by people who imagine that they are the definitive authority on how other people are to express themselves, when in reality people already use whatever language is familiar to them to describe themselves, and there is no confusion among people who already share a common language.

Rather than limiting definitions through deconstructionism, people are contributing to the expansion of definitions and gaining the power to define their own experiences for themselves. They don’t have to adhere to limiting definitions like “male bodied” this or “female bodied” that. Even when someone uses the term womanhood or womanliness, I don’t have to be a woman to understand what they mean, there is no confusion there for me. There would be confusion for anyone who isn’t familiar with the language, but that’s nothing that can’t be understood through dialog and conversations. Either JK wants people to have conversations, or rather from the way she speaks, I gather she means she wants people to have conversations on her terms, based upon her understanding of womanhood and so on. Where does that leave women who are not as educated and articulate as JK?

She was somewhat on the money when she tried to make a joke of the fact that there are people who describe themselves as non-binary, people who menstruate, and she suggested that there used to be a word for those people - Wumben, Wimpund, Woomud...

The words she could have been searching for could have included numerous other words which were once used to refer to people who menstruate -


The spelling of "woman" in English has progressed over the past millennium from wīfmann to wīmmann to wumman, and finally, the modern spelling woman. In Old English, wīfmann meant "female human", whereas wēr meant "male human". Mann or monn had a gender-neutral meaning of "human", corresponding to Modern English "person" or "someone"; however, subsequent to the Norman Conquest, man began to be used more in reference to "male human", and by the late 13th century had begun to eclipse usage of the older term wēr. The medial labial consonants f and m in wīfmann coalesced into the modern form "woman", while the initial element wīf, which meant "female", underwent semantic narrowing to the sense of a married woman ("wife").

It is a popular misconception that the term "woman" is etymologically connected to "womb". "Womb" derives from the Old English word wamb meaning "belly, bowels, heart, uterus" (modern German retains the colloquial term "wamme" from Old High German wamba for "belly, paunch, lap").


Woman


JK may well wish to portray herself as inarticulate, ill-educated and illiterate, though I don’t believe she is any of those things, nor does anyone actually need any of those things in order to communicate their experiences amongst themselves, or to communicate their experiences to other people. One simply needs other people who are willing to listen. JK would not be as wealthy as she is for example no matter how good her ideas are, if other people had been unwilling to listen to her and introduce her ideas to a broader audience outside of her own mind.

I can see no reason why she imagines anyone would grant her the authority to determine their fate for them when she has taught them through her works that they are the arbiters of their own destiny.

LLMMLL

KiKi III wrote: »

Words are meaningless without a common agreement on what their definitions. The vast majority of people would agree that “adult human female” is the definition of woman, and for most trans women are a separate but related category.

That's just patently untrue. You use and understand words all the time without defining them. If you had to be able to define every word that you use, you'd have an extremely tiny vocabulary.

Stark

This is starting to remind me of debates over whether tomato is a fruit or a vegetable or whether a peanut is a nut or what fruits are berries (you're very very likely to get the berries one wrong).

Rodin

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's a little egocentric to think that as a cis man you get to decide what constitutes being a man.

You're absolutely free to have an opinion on the topic and debate to the death but you don't have any ownership over the concept.

Cis man?
There only is one type of man.

What makes a "trans man" a man? What features?

Rodin

mc25 wrote: »

Biological female as per your definition here, transwomen are women

But they're not females.
Correct?

Bannasidhe

Rodin wrote: »

Often looking for a penis because they want to procreate.

Sure.
Having babbies is what cis straight women are all about. :rolleyes:

Honestly - sometimes I really wonder ...

KiKi III

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's just patently untrue. You use and understand words all the time without defining them. If you had to be able to define every word that you use, you'd have an extremely tiny vocabulary.

Most people have a shared understanding of what the words they are using to communicate mean.

If I say “Pass the blue plate” I don’t need to define “blue” or “plate” because the person I’m speaking to knows what that means.

It’s literally the function of learning a language.

CtevenSrowder

Stark wrote: »

This is starting to remind me of debates over whether tomato is a fruit or a vegetable or whether a peanut is a nut or what fruits are berries (you're very very likely to get the berries one wrong).

I don't even understand why this pretence of trans-woman are woman is trotted out. You can have self-id without this blatant mis-truth.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It is an exclusive definition. It excludes anyone who isn't female. That's what to be exclusive means:



You are now telling me it isn't exclusive because it doesn't include those who are male. It makes absolutely no sense. Or are you now going to tell me that the definition of exclusive is only MY OPINION aswell?

Anyhow, It is not MY OPINION. I have already linked you the definitions in 3 different dictionaries. Even if we are to go along with what you have said in your last sentence, a decision as to what something is has to be made. Otherwise nothing will have any meaning, if one person's meaning differs to the next. You descend into farce. And the meaning of women is clear.

A woman is an adult human female.

Your definition (well I would say your understanding) of exclusive is fine. But it doesn't include people who IN YOUR OPINION are male. Nobody has to share your opinion. I certainly don't. Your definition does misses out on an entire group of women so is not an exclusive definitoon of women.

And it does not follow that decisions have to be made about what things are. I use tables all the time without having to decide on an exclusive definition of tables.

Sittingpretty

Stark wrote: »

This is starting to remind me of debates over whether tomato is a fruit or a vegetable or whether a peanut is a nut or what fruits are berries (you're very very likely to get the berries one wrong).

It’s starting to drive me to drink and I’m tee total.

The drive isn’t long either.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The spelling of "woman" in English has progressed over the past millennium from wīfmann to wīmmann to wumman, and finally, the modern spelling woman. In Old English, wīfmann meant "female human", whereas wēr meant "male human". Mann or monn had a gender-neutral meaning of "human", corresponding to Modern English "person" or "someone"; however, subsequent to the Norman Conquest, man began to be used more in reference to "male human", and by the late 13th century had begun to eclipse usage of the older term wēr. The medial labial consonants f and m in wīfmann coalesced into the modern form "woman", while the initial element wīf, which meant "female", underwent semantic narrowing to the sense of a married woman ("wife").

What we can gather from this then is whilst the spelling may have changed, the meaning of the word has not.

wifmann,wimmann, wumman, woman... all meant as 'female human', or put another way, excluding those that are male.

I rest my case.

Quantum Erasure

Stark wrote: »

This is starting to remind me of debates over whether tomato is a fruit or a vegetable or whether a peanut is a nut or what fruits are berries (you're very very likely to get the berries one wrong).

was just reading yesterday that cucumbers are fruit, and berries...

LLMMLL

KiKi III wrote: »

Most people have a shared understanding of what the words they are using to communicate mean.

If I say “Pass the blue plate” I don’t need to define “blue” or “plate” because the person I’m speaking to knows what that means.

It’s literally the function of learning a language.

Yup I agree. But shared understanding fully allows for people to disagree about elements of their understanding.

And your example "blue" is perfect. Try to get any two people to draw exact lines as to what is blue and what is not blue. And if they don't exactly match (which they definitely won't) ask them do they agree that the sky is blue. Ask them do they understand what blue is.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

Words are meaningless without a common agreement on what their definitions. The vast majority of people would agree that “adult human female” is the definition of woman, and for most trans women are a separate but related category.

If you give the vast majority of people that definition in the first place, then it stands to reason that they would give you that description back when you ask them the question. You’re not even giving them multiple choices?

However if you ask most people what is a woman, I don’t know that the vast majority of people actually would answer “adult human female”, you’re likely to get a tonne of different answers because everyone has their own ideas as to how they define woman or women or what constitutes woman or women.