Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Stark

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

There's the biological definitions aspect of things with X and Y chromosomes and gametes and the like and then there's the societal definition. Whether or not society accepts you as who you say you are rather than requiring strict adherence to definitions like producing ova or having the correct chromosomes and the like. The latter is subject to change as society evolves/progresses.

No-one's arguing that someone can change their chromosomes/produce different gametes. They are arguing that society has the choice over whether to accept someone's identity for what they say it is or not.

Sittingpretty

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

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

I lost out on a decent enough sum of prize money recently not knowing cucumbers were fruit

I knew about tomatoes but cucumbers got me in the long grass

Quantum Erasure

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

but we can all agree that black isn't white, and something that's neither, but along the spectrum, would be grey

Sittingpretty

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

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

Also from my wealth of utterly useless information, did you know cashew nuts are not actually nuts at all.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do all lesbians play sports?
Do all lesbians shave their armpits?
Are all lesbians left-wing?
Do lesbians eat meat??
Do all lesbians want to be Megan Rapinoe?
Do all lesbians want to have sex with Megan Rapinoe?
Does Megan Rapinoe want to have sex with Megan Rapinoe?


These and other questions where someone will answer for all lesbians everywhere in the world because they are all the same not coming to an AMA on a site near you soon.

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

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?

What makes you think I have never touched a penis?
Or used a dildo?
Or a strap-on?
Or engaged in penetrative sex?

As I am in a committed long-term monogamous relationship I, personally, don't look at anyone as a potential partner so it is impossible for me to answer. I don't tend to go around scoping the market when I am not buying. Not even interested in reading the menu tbh.
And tbh all the transwomen I have met are too femme for my tastes. I prefer butch women.

As for other lesbians I refer you to my post above.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.
Again, we're back to the gobbldeygook of it not being exclusive because it doesn't include. That makes no sense.

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.

Again, we're back to the gobbldeygook of it not being exclusive because it doesn't include. That makes no sense.

It 'misses' them out because they aren't women. You are starting from the assumption that they are women without even knowing what the word means.

You are engaging in circular logic. You can't even give a definition to replace the current one. You cannot spell out for us what your conceptualisations of trans-woman and non-trans woman are. If we were to all live in your world there would be no words as nothing would have meaning. One persons 'conceptualisation' could be completely different to anothers. And it gets worse when one refuses to announce what their conceptualisation is. 'And it doesn't follow that decisions have to be made about what things are'. Ofcourse it does. For the reason above.

This is all because deep down you know fully well that trans-woman aren't woman. And any go at trying to conceptualise or define what a woman is cannot use biology. So all your left with is stereotypes which leads you down a road that you don't want to go down.

One eyed Jack

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.

You’re assuming they know what you mean. It doesn’t follow that they actually do know what you mean. The function of language is of course to develop a common understanding, and by way of a simple demonstration I’m sure you can think of plenty of examples where you were misunderstood when you imagine you were being perfectly clear in communicating your desires.

Bannasidhe

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 know this one!
A tomato is a fruiting vegetable.
A peanut is a vegetable or legume.
Bananas are berries but strawberries aren't.

One eyed Jack

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Also from my wealth of utterly useless information, did you know cashew nuts are not actually nuts at all.

Nor are monkey nuts, they’re legumes.


(I’m available for useless trivia rounds in table quizzes )

Spanish Eyes

Go to bed y'all or take your bags over to Reddit now. LOL.

Quantum Erasure

Bannasidhe wrote: »

...

As for other lesbians I refer you to my post above.

fair enough.

like I said, no-one said it's the main thing...

Rodin

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.

And just because you say it's a green bowl doesn't make it so.
Because it has no features of being so.

The age of reason really is in the rearview mirror.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Again, we're back to the gobbldeygook of it not being exclusive because it doesn't include. That makes no sense.

It 'misses' them out because they aren't women. You are starting from the assumption that they are women without even knowing what the word means.

You are engaging in circular logic. You can't even give a definition to replace the current one. You cannot spell out for us what your conceptualisations of trans-woman and non-trans woman are. If we were to all live in your world there would be no words as nothing would have meaning. One persons 'conceptualisation' could be completely different to anothers. And it gets worse when one refuses to announce what their conceptualisation is. 'And it doesn't follow that decisions have to be made about what things are'. Ofcourse it does. For the reason above.

This is all because deep down you know fully well that trans-woman aren't woman. And any go at trying to conceptualise or define what a woman is cannot use biology. So all your left with is stereotypes which leads you down a road that you don't want to go down.

Firstly I've never used stereotypes to define women.

I've already announced my conceptualisation. It's cis women and trans women. I won't however provide an exclusive definiton because my whole argument is thaT exclusive definitions of women don't exist.

And I'm not saying your definition is not exclusive because it doesn't include. I'm saying your definition OF WOMEN is not exclusive because it does not include a particular category OF WOMEN.

the definition you provided is exclusive. It's just not an exclusive definiton of women.

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nor are monkey nuts, they’re legumes.


(I’m available for useless trivia rounds in table quizzes )

Ah here! Get outta town! Seriously? I didn’t know that either. Clearly I need to brush up!

It was a table quiz I lost at. I’m a table quiz fiend!

CtevenSrowder

Stark wrote: »

There's the biological definitions aspect of things with X and Y chromosomes and gametes and the like and then there's the societal definition. Whether or not society accepts you as who you say you are rather than requiring strict adherence to definitions like producing ova or having the correct chromosomes and the like. The latter is subject to change as society evolves/progresses.

But ultimately there has to be a definition. Otherwise the word can mean all sorts to all sorts of people, and as such is rendered useless. Surely as a gay man you understand the dangers of this. Yes society is progressive now, but just because we progress doesn't mean we can't regress to the days of a man who likes traditionally womanly things being considered a man not so much. Look at Iran, were gay men are coerced into transitioning because they are not considered 'manly' by society because they gay and effeminate.
I am sure most would agree that adult human female is the best one, as it includes everyone who is female. So you can be the girliest of girls type female or the butchist of girls type female yet still be a woman, and noone can say otherwise.

Stark wrote: »

No-one's arguing that someone can change their chromosomes/produce different gametes. They are arguing that society has the choice over whether to accept someone's identity for what they say it is or not.

LLMMLL has argued that trans-women are female, even though they are male. So that argument has been made.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I know this one!
A tomato is a fruiting vegetable.
A peanut is a vegetable or legume.
Bananas are berries but strawberries aren't.

Peanuts are vegetables! Never would've thought that.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

Your case doesn’t rest on a whole lot Cteven. But you missed the point in any case - if someone uses the word wifmann for example, will you immediately understand what they mean? I doubt it. In the same way as someone were to use the term gender non-binary to describe themselves, would you be able to tell from that whether they are your understanding of man or woman?

You need a lot more information from anyone, and even then their idea of a woman and yours may be very different. They may well describe themselves as a woman and you might be given to thinking “ahh hold on now a minute” based upon your visual perception alone. I know I did the other day when I happened upon Arlene Foster!

Rodin

LLMMLL wrote: »

Firstly I've never used stereotypes to define women.

I've already announced my conceptualisation. It's cis women and trans women. I won't however provide an exclusive definiton because my whole argument is thaT exclusive definitions of women don't exist.

And I'm not saying your definition is not exclusive because it doesn't include. I'm saying your definition OF WOMEN is not exclusive because it does not include a particular category OF WOMEN.

the definition you provided is exclusive. It's just not an exclusive definiton of women.

To get around the nonsense of this I prefer to use the terms "male" and "female". I don't use the term gender anymore. I prefer "sex."

I presume this isn't an issue and everyone's happy.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But ultimately there has to be a definition. Otherwise the word can mean all sorts to all sorts of people, and as such is rendered useless. Surely as a gay man you understand the dangers of this. Yes society is progressive now, but just because we progress doesn't mean we can't regress to the days of a man who likes traditionally womanly things being considered a man not so much. Look at Iran, were gay men are coerced into transitioning because they are not considered 'manly' by society because they gay and effeminate.
I am sure most would agree that adult human female is the best one, as it includes everyone who is female. So you can be the girliest of girls type female or the butchist of girls type female yet still be a woman, and noone can say otherwise.



LLMMLL has argued that trans-women are female, even though they are male. So that argument has been made.

I never said someone could change their chrokosomes.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Firstly I've never used stereotypes to define women.

I've already announced my conceptualisation. It's cis women and trans women. I won't however provide an exclusive definiton because my whole argument is thaT exclusive definitions of women don't exist.

I didn't ask for a definition. I asked for your conceptualisation of either trans or non trans women. Either will suit me.

LLMMLL wrote: »

And I'm not saying your definition is not exclusive because it doesn't include. I'm saying your definition OF WOMEN is not exclusive because it does not include a particular category OF WOMEN.

the definition you provided is exclusive. It's just not an exclusive definiton of women.

It is an exclusive definition of women. Again, you are starting from the point that trans-women are women before you know the definition of the word.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I never said someone could change their chrokosomes.

Well then how can a male be a female?

One eyed Jack

Rodin wrote: »

And just because you say it's a green bowl doesn't make it so.
Because it has no features of being so.

The age of reason really is in the rearview mirror.

Ever tried to tell someone who is visually impaired to pass you the green bowl?

As I mentioned to a friend of mine recently when she asked could I see the green man across the road when we were waiting at a set of traffic lights, I’m not even looking for the green man, I’m listening for the beeps (they make a beeping noise to let people who are visually impaired know it’s safe to cross the road).

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your case doesn’t rest on a whole lot Cteven. But you missed the point in any case - if someone uses the word wifmann for example, will you immediately understand what they mean? I doubt it. In the same way as someone were to use the term gender non-binary to describe themselves, would you be able to tell from that whether they are your understanding of man or woman?

You need a lot more information from anyone, and even then their idea of a woman and yours may be very different. They may well describe themselves as a woman and you might be given to thinking “ahh hold on now a minute” based upon your visual perception alone. I know I did the other day when I happened upon Arlene Foster!

The word wifmann has evolved into woman. It has always meant the same thing is the point.

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Peanuts are vegetables! Never would've thought that.

I genuinely had to learn this stuff for an exam (city and guilds cheffy one) decades ago. It has only ever been useful for pub quizzes.

There was also a whole section on herb garnishes (turned out to be more efficient to memorise what did not have parsley as the official garnish) which has never been any use at all for anything.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I genuinely had to learn this stuff for an exam (city and guilds cheffy one) decades ago. It has only ever been useful for pub quizzes.

There was also a whole section on herb garnishes (turned out to be more efficient to memorise what did not have parsley as the official garnish) which has never been any use at all for anything.

haha That sounds awful. I've a friend who trained to be a chef in college. His hours were crazy. He'd do 9 to 9 of lectures/practicals somedays.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I didn't ask for a definition. I asked for your conceptualisation of either trans or non trans women. Either will suit me.


It is an exclusive definition of women. Again, you are starting from the point that trans-women are women before you know the definition of the word.

Yes because the vast majority of our concepts are not based on definitions as I demonstrated in an earlier post about deconstructionism.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a conceptualisation and a definition. It's quite long to type out so go back and look at my reply to Gruffalox about deconstructionism and then you will see why asking to out a coneptualization into words is asking for a definition.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Well then how can a male be a female?

I didn't say a male could be female. I said trans females are female.

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

haha That sounds awful. I've a friend who trained to be a chef in college. His hours were crazy. He'd do 9 to 9 of lectures/practicals somedays.

Cheffing is an awful job. I gave it up over 20 years ago and went back to college.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes because the vast majority of our concepts are not based on definitions as I demonstrated in an earlier post about deconstructionism.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a conceptualisation and a definition. It's quite long to type out so go back and look at my reply to Gruffalox about deconstructionism and then you will see why asking to out a coneptualization into words is asking for a definition.

It's not asking for a definition. A concept is some kind of idea as to what something is. You can absolutely put that into words. If you can't even begin to it sounds like you haven't any concept in the first place.

Again, the reason you won't is because you know you will have to resort to some kind of stereotype as talking biology is out of the question

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn't say a male could be female. I said trans females are female.

haha it gets better!!:D:D

What is a trans-female?