Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)
Options
Comments
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »"Female" says nothing about stereotypes. All it refers to is biological chromosomal composition.
Says you. For plenty more people, the use of the word ‘female’ carries all sorts of connotations and indications about the person or people being referred to, and the person using the word. It’s quite common for example in what’s called the “manosphere” to use the words ‘female’ or ‘females’ when referring to women, the connotation being that they are regarded as inferior to men.[Deleted User] wrote: »You can have females who are interested in what are traditionally seen as "boy's toys" and vice versa with males.
If someone doesn't fit the stereotypical "woman", that means they are a non-feminine female. And there's nothing wrong with that. They are and will always be female. Whether they feel comfortable with traditional stereotypes of what it means to be a woman is another question. Why can't someone who is not stereotypically female simply be proud of their version of what it means to be a female? There is no rule that says "all females must have long hair and lipstick". It can be whatever you choose it to be. But to say that you do not identify with the stereotype does not mean that you can invent a new label that somehow overrides your biological sex.
Y’know for someone who claims to want less labels, you’re now coming up with “non-feminine female” to describe women, and you say there’s nothing wrong with that, but nobody else can invent new labels that override their biological sex. Fortunately for everyone else, they have the same freedom you do to invent new labels to define themselves however they see fit. They are not, and can not, be compelled to limit themselves to definitions and criteria which suit your subjective standards, or anyone else’s subjective standards for that matter.[Deleted User] wrote: »For instance, if they were born 300 years ago when the stereotypical woman looked/acted differently, would they have identified otherwise? I don't think so.
They could have, and they did, in spite of the fact that you think otherwise. It’s only in recent years that people have gained the freedom as recognised in law, to self-determination. Gender isn’t a new concept, and the relationship between sex and gender is nothing new either. It’s not quite 300 years ago, bit longer than that, but at one point in our history, children of either sex were referred to as girls -
By late 14th century a distinction was arising between female children, often called 'gay girls' – and male, or 'knave girls' -: a1375 William of Palerne (1867) l. 816 ' Whan þe gaye gerles were in-to þe gardin come, Faire floures þei founde.' ('When the gay girls came into the garden, Fair flowers they found.') By the 16th century, the unsupported word had begun to mean specifically a female: 1546 J. Heywood Dialogue Prouerbes Eng. Tongue i. x. sig. D, 'The boy thy husbande, and thou the gyrle his wyfe.' The usage meaning 'child of either sex' survived much longer in Irish English. "girl, n.".[Deleted User] wrote: »Furthermore, there is no such thing as a 100% masculine man or 100% feminine woman. All of us exist on a spectrum, so to speak, of what is stereotypically masculine and stereotypically feminine. Does that mean that we are all trans-? Self-evidently not. I am not 100% stereotypically male, but that doesn't make me trans-. It simply means I'm less of a stereotype than the next male. And, again, there's nothing wrong with that.
You can have diversity in the brackets of "female" and "male".
Again, says you, self-evidently, while requiring of other people that in offering an objective definition of anything they must not refer to themselves. It’s just another example of double-standards. It’s fine though, I get it, I’m not even going to harp on about how by definition, a spectrum is from 0% to 100% in varying degrees, and therefore there must exist 100% masculine and 100% feminine. As it happens, and this is me being self-evident - contrary to your assertion, I am 100% masculine. Most people are either 100% masculine or feminine, it’s what informs beliefs about stereotypes of gender and behaviour. If there was truly nothing wrong with that, then it stands to reason that you wouldn’t feel the need to explain that there is nothing wrong with that. And that’s a good thing - it shows that you’re self-aware enough to realise that other people don’t perceive things the same way you do.[Deleted User] wrote: »Ultimately, we must turn to the grave. In 1,000 year's time from now, when corpses are exhumed in some archeological dig, they will know nothing about whether that person fit a socially constructed stereotype of female or male. What they will be able to detect is the biological structure and, from that, the sex of the person.
They do though, that’s the whole bloody point of archaeology - to reconstruct civilisations, it’s not about reconstructing individual people. One of the fundamental issues with archaeology has always been that archaeologists throughout history have based their assumptions about how people lived then, based upon how people live today, or at the time when they made their discoveries anyway, and over time, more evidence has been unearthed which contradict those earlier assumptions. Archaeologists of the future are likely to find all sorts of objects buried with (and buried in) people which from their point of view are archaic, and present all manner of questions, burial rituals being the most obvious one.[Deleted User] wrote: »Gender does not objectively exist; it's a subjective interpretation of how males and females should act. Any anything subjective is a matter of choice - and people can make choices all day long.
Your second point doesn’t follow from the first. We already know that gender is not an objective standard, because it’s not a tangible concept. If it were a tangible concept, then it would be much easier to make your point about people’s subjective choices. However I did not choose to be masculine, any more than anyone else can choose to be masculine, feminine, or something else entirely outside the binary classification of gender. Objectively, people can not simply choose their gender. They can however, choose to associate whatever they wish with gender, or choose not to associate with a particular gender, or choose criteria which defines, describes or discriminates between one gender and another. You’ve already stated there’s nothing wrong with that, and you’re trying to argue that there is something wrong with people having the freedom to define their gender however they wish, according to their beliefs about gender. I get that you’re trying to be objective, but you’re trying to make out your subjective standards are the objective standard which everyone must adhere to. Yet nowhere is it written in law that anyone must act according to what someone else believes is objectively true, and that presents something of a stumbling block for people who have argued for people’s individual rights and freedoms since The Enlightenment. People don’t want to go back to the Dark Ages - no putting that genie back in the bottle.[Deleted User] wrote: »But sex objectively exists - and cannot be dismissed on the basis of someone's subjective feelings about what male and female should mean - or another third-label that basically describes someone's personality.
Sex exists, of course, but how sex is defined is not objective. It’s entirely based upon assumptions, associations and connotations which are dependent upon culture and society and values and so on. It’s why people refer to testosterone and oestrogen as the male and female sex hormones respectively, yet neither hormones are exclusive to either sex - they are associated on the basis of observation and classification, by human beings. Objectively - nature doesn’t give a shiny shyte what you call it, because nature doesn’t have the capacity of consciousness or awareness to care one way or the other how people classify their observations. The antonym of biological as it relates to human biology is artificial, inorganic, inanimate, a robot. The development of secondary sex characteristics is not unique to human biology, and arguments about biological this, that and the other ignores the fact that it’s precisely because we have begun to understand how to overcome the limitations of human biology that societies have evolved to the point we’re at now where we have the knowledge to treat all sorts of conditions, albeit still with a poor understanding of how the whole ecosystem of human biology actually functions. Always improving though, which is a good thing. Lobotomies for example, generally considered a bit of a no-no nowadays, but paediatric lobectomies to address epilepsy in children - the benefits outweigh any potential negative outcomes of not performing the procedure.[Deleted User] wrote: »Less of the labels, please. They are almost totally unnecessary and, in the vast majority of cases, only serve to make the person feel a bit special about themselves.
Less of the labels, yet you imagine that “non-feminine female” is a particularly useful label, but at the same time tells people nothing, and serves to make the person feel a bit special about themselves. I’d think anyone using the terms “non-feminine female” was definitely a bit special. Men, women and children works just fine in my experience to convey plenty about whomever anyone is referring to, and it’s only a special sort who imagines that everyone should be compelled to adhere to their beliefs and standards which they don’t even apply to themselves, only when it suits them to imagine they’re making an objective argument.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »
Y’know for someone who claims to want less labels, you’re now coming up with “non-feminine female” to describe women, and you say there’s nothing wrong with that, but nobody else can invent new labels that override their biological sex.
I don't yet have time to go through your post in detail but, for now, let me clarify that "non-feminine female" is not a label; it's a description.
I don't expect people to walk around with "non-feminine female" in their passport, but they are definitely female - so that part of the description is most certainly true (the only label, along with male, I am willing to accept - in other words, biological labels).
The point made, which you've sidelined, is that if a woman doesn't feel "feminine" in the stereotypical sense, all that makes her is a woman who isn't stereotypically feminine. It doesn't make her a man, and it doesn't make her "not a man and not a woman", it just means she's not stereotypically feminine. Many lesbians are not stereotypically female, but they are still women. The point stands.
That's not a label, however sarcastically you put it.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »I don't yet have time to go through your post in detail but, for now, let me clarify that "non-feminine female" is not a label; it's a description.
I don't expect people to walk around with "non-feminine female" in their passport, but they are definitely female - so that part of the description is most certainly true (the only label, along with male, I am willing to accept - in other words, biological labels).
The point made, which you've sidelined, is that if a woman doesn't feel "feminine" in the stereotypical sense, all that makes her is a woman who isn't stereotypically feminine. It doesn't make her a man, and it doesn't make her "not a man and not a woman", it just means she's not stereotypically feminine. Many lesbians are not stereotypically female, but they are still women. The point stands.
That's not a label, however sarcastically you put it.
Sounds like you get to decide what’s a description and what’s a label.
Say you asked a poster here to describe themselves and they said “well I’m a woman, I’m 5ft4, I weigh...” would you be like “I’ll have to stop you there, Woman is a label not a description”.0 -
Sounds like you get to decide what’s a description and what’s a label.
Say you asked a poster here to describe themselves and they said “well I’m a woman, I’m 5ft4, I weigh...” would you be like “I’ll have to stop you there, Woman is a label not a description”.
Woman and man are biological terms.
Astralgender, pangender, agender etc. - are social constructs and, as such, have no utility to me or anyone else, except to that person themselves. They can keep these personal labels for themselves, I do not mind. I hope these labels make them happy.
I just don't want these personalized labels forced down my throat. I don't even want to know these labels exist.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Woman and man are biological terms.
Astralgender, pangender, agender etc. - are social constructs and, as such, have no utility to me or anyone else, except to that person themselves. They can keep these personal labels for themselves, I do not mind. I hope these labels make them happy.
I just don't want these personalized labels forced down my throat. I don't even want to know these labels exist.
Woman and man had meaning long before science stuck its nose in. Children with zero science education can use the terms man and woman. If you choose to restrict your own personal definition of man and women to chromosomes and gametes that’s fine. It’s your choice. But it’s not some impartial appreciation of exact definitions.0 -
Advertisement
-
Woman and man had meaning long before science stuck its nose in. Children with zero science education can use the terms man and woman. If you choose to restrict your own personal definition of man and women to chromosomes and gametes that’s fine. It’s your choice. But it’s not some impartial appreciation of exact definitions.
False.
The essence of woman and man have remained precisely the same.
The biological objectivity of the difference between men and women overrides any, to use your phrase, "personal definition".
I care nothing for personal definitions, as they are nothing more than subjective feelings that can change from day to day, year to year.
I'm sticking with the science on this one, thanks.
"Personal definitions" and the emotions that back them up are more fitting for the fiction or quasi-religious end of the bookstore, not the science end.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »False.
The essence of woman and man have remained precisely the same.
The biological objectivity of the difference between men and women overrides any, to use your phrase, "personal definition".
I care nothing for personal definitions, as they are nothing more than subjective feelings that can change from day to day, year to year.
I'm sticking with the science on this one, thanks.
"Personal definitions" and the emotions that back them up are more fitting for the fiction or quasi-religious end of the bookstore, not the science end.
False.
Define essence. Is that a scientific term?
The supposed “biological objectivity” doesn’t override personal definitions. It just happens to align with yours so it suits you to claim that.0 -
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »What is your non-self-referential definition of a "woman"?
Did you not read my posts? I’ve been criticising the notion of definitions. That was my central point.
And your response is to ask me to give a definition...
Cis women and trans women are women. It doesn’t need a dictionary definition. That’s not how people understand concepts.0 -
Did you not read my posts? I’ve been criticising the notion of definitions. That was my central point.
And your response is to ask me to give a definition...
Cis women and trans women are women. It doesn’t need a dictionary definition. That’s not how people understand concepts.
It needs a definition.
And it's exactly how people understand concepts.
That's how words work.
The irony/stupidity of criticising someone for "not reading your posts" while denouncing definitions.
Cis and trans women are women....but there is no definition of women, but they are definitely women, even though woman doesn't mean anything.
The absurdity is laughable0 -
Advertisement
-
Sounds like you get to decide what’s a description and what’s a label.
Say you asked a poster here to describe themselves and they said “well I’m a woman, I’m 5ft4, I weigh...” would you be like “I’ll have to stop you there, Woman is a label not a description”.
If it was actually a man who was 6ft 8 I suppose you would feel he was being accurate as it's only a state of opinion and personal outlook0 -
Did you not read my posts? I’ve been criticising the notion of definitions. That was my central point.
And your response is to ask me to give a definition...
Cis women and trans women are women. It doesn’t need a dictionary definition. That’s not how people understand concepts.
So just to clarify, you are claiming that "woman" has no definition whatsoever?
If something has no definition, how can you possibly know what it is - let alone generate arguments based on such a premise.
This is just fiction come to life; believe what you want, irrespective of the real world, just because it's the world you would prefer to live in. Alice in Wonderland kind of logic.
And I say this as a member of the LGBT community myself, many of whom are too scared to voice their opposition to what is going on, except when it's deemed safe to do so.0 -
eskimohunt wrote: »So just to clarify, you are claiming that "woman" has no definition whatsoever?
If something has no definition, how can you possibly know what it is - let alone generate arguments based on such a premise.
It's quite simple if you read his posts. And by read I mean ignore. Because that's what I define the word "read" to mean in this context.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »It's quite simple if you read his posts. And by read I mean ignore. Because that's what I define the word "read" to mean in this context.
Let's take his statement at face value, in the most minimum possible form.
Here is a summary definition of a type of organism of the human race - who happen to occupy approx. 50% of said race:
Women have:- two X chromosomes
- capable of pregnancy
- capable of giving birth from puberty until menopause.
- Female anatomy includes the fallopian tubes, ovaries, uterus, vulva, Skene's glands, and Bartholin's glands.
- The adult female pelvis is wider, the hips broader, and the breasts larger than that of adult males.
- Women have significantly less facial and other body hair
- Women have a higher body fat composition
- Women are, on average, shorter and less muscular than men.
Yes, there are exceptions to the rule.
Some women are very tall, some may be capable of pregnancy earlier or later etc. - but that's always the case. Here is a nice, clean, simple explanation of what it means to be a biological woman. And almost all species have this dichotomy between male/female; that's not a coincidence. And the above says nothing about the fact that many trans- feel attracted not to the biological end of things, but the socio-cultural stereotypes of how women are expected to live/behave in society. That cannot be grounded in biology simply because it is, by definition, socially constructed.
Now, even if you take myself - a biological man - and surgically transform many of those factors into myself, it still wouldn't change my biological status.
I would still be a man in the same way that, if you perform surgery on a male sheep in the same way, it doesn't generate a female sheep.
That means that physical intervention has nothing to do with it. Indeed, many trans- do not undergo surgery of any kind at all.
So what we are dealing with is personal perception - and that is entirely subjective. Even if the strength of someone's belief is strong, it is not evidence that the belief is true. This reasoning applies to all forms of strong belief.
What trans-/gender identity activists wish to do, it seems to me, is abolish all definitions of sex and gender entirely - that way, a small number of people can identify with whatever they want, without question or without the need to recourse to evidence or science.
This sounds suspiciously like some form of post-modernist nonsense.
I also have a theory that this is grounded, or at least made worse, by the relative decline of religion and structured order in society; that now this is being replaced by a new form of ideology that people are religiously adhering to, on faith, without evidence. And I say this as an atheist, and as a member of the LGBT community.0 -
Sounds like you get to decide what’s a description and what’s a label.
Say you asked a poster here to describe themselves and they said “well I’m a woman, I’m 5ft4, I weigh...” would you be like “I’ll have to stop you there, Woman is a label not a description”.
The essential point here being that sex, height, and weight are not labels, they are defined realities.
A man saying he identifies as a woman is not a provable reality, its merely a feeling based on what he believes to be his definition of "woman".
As a subsequent post from you confirmed, you don't believe the word woman has an objective definition, so quite why you believe men can be women when the word doesn't have a definition is quite the summation of the madness that we currently find ourselves living in.0 -
The essential point here being that sex, height, and weight are not labels, they are defined realities.
A man saying he identifies as a woman is not a provable reality, its merely a feeling based on what he believes to his definition of "woman".
As a subsequent post from you confirmed, you don't believe the word woman has an objective definition, so quite why you believe men can be women when the word doesn't have a definition is quite the summation of the madness that we currently find ourselves living in.
Precisely.
Also, note that language can be slippery at times.
To "identify as" is not the same as saying "is".0 -
Just to add to my previous point.
I am a man. I don't "identify as" a man; I simply am a man.
If I were to "identify as" a man, it would suggest or imply that what I currently am is "not a man" - otherwise identification would not be required.
And if we are to accept the conclusion that trans-women "are" women", then surely the term "identify as" is entirely redundant. In fact, trans- would be entirely redundant, too - because that person claims they "are" women, just like all other women.
Why draw distinctions if no distinction exists?0 -
Identify as..
Can a guilty person identify as innocent because he believes he is?
Yes. They can. But they would be wrong.
Can a poor person identify as a millionaire?
Yes. They can. But they would be wrong.
Can a tall person identify as a small person?
Yes they can. But they would be wrong.
Can a biological man identify as a woman?
Yes they can. But YOU would be wrong if you said they weren't.
Doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.0 -
eskimohunt wrote: »And if we are to accept the conclusion that trans-women "are" women", then surely the term "identify as" is entirely redundant. In fact, trans- would be entirely redundant, too - because that person claims they "are" women, just like all other women.
A lot of this thread is back and forth about semantics and etymology so it's always amusing when this argument pops up. I'm willing to get out a venn diagram to explain why.0 -
Gentlemanne wrote: »A lot of this thread is back and forth about semantics and etymology so it's always amusing when this argument pops up. I'm willing to get out a venn diagram to explain why.
I'm glad you find it amusing.
Perhaps you will have the courage in your convictions to actually present this diagram and actually give an explanation rather than allude in the way you are in order to contribute without saying anything.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Your second point doesn’t follow from the first. We already know that gender is not an objective standard, because it’s not a tangible concept. If it were a tangible concept, then it would be much easier to make your point about people’s subjective choices. However I did not choose to be masculine, any more than anyone else can choose to be masculine, feminine, or something else entirely outside the binary classification of gender. Objectively, people can not simply choose their gender. They can however, choose to associate whatever they wish with gender, or choose not to associate with a particular gender, or choose criteria which defines, describes or discriminates between one gender and another. You’ve already stated there’s nothing wrong with that, and you’re trying to argue that there is something wrong with people having the freedom to define their gender however they wish, according to their beliefs about gender. I get that you’re trying to be objective, but you’re trying to make out your subjective standards are the objective standard which everyone must adhere to. Yet nowhere is it written in law that anyone must act according to what someone else believes is objectively true, and that presents something of a stumbling block for people who have argued for people’s individual rights and freedoms since The Enlightenment. People don’t want to go back to the Dark Ages - no putting that genie back in the bottle.
Sex exists, of course, but how sex is defined is not objective.
On the last point, yes - sex exists. However, you cannot switch sex - no matter what the objective standard happens to be. And there are only two sexes.
On your former point, gender is a social construct.
In fact, I would argue that gender does not exist. I prefer the original use of gender, which referred to male and female, because people were often shy to use the term 'sex'. Gender filled that role. It has since metamorphosed into something all completely different.
It doesn't matter to me what someone feels re: femininity and masculinity; it does not, and never can, change sex.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »It needs a definition.
And it's exactly how people understand concepts.
That's how words work.
The irony/stupidity of criticising someone for "not reading your posts" while denouncing definitions.
Cis and trans women are women....but there is no definition of women, but they are definitely women, even though woman doesn't mean anything.
The absurdity is laughable
Did your parents list out a load of definitions to you when you were 2 years old and learning your first words? If definitions are needed to understand a concept please explain this.
The absurdity is laughable.0 -
Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 9,812 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 8219
I think it's fair to add a new line to this in the interests of fairness:Deleted User wrote: »Identify as..
Can a guilty person identify as innocent because he believes he is?
Yes. They can. But they would be wrong.
Can a poor person identify as a millionaire?
Yes. They can. But they would be wrong.
Can a tall person identify as a small person?
Yes they can. But they would be wrong.
Can a biological man identify as a woman?
Yes they can. But YOU would be wrong if you said they weren't.
Doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
Can a biological man realistically identify as a trans-woman?
Yes they can. And there's nothing wrong with that.
We are into all sorts of dangerous territory when were are being told we must agree that men become women (or vice versa) upon declaration, the least of all dangerous territories being the denial of biology.
This discussion will always loop back to one or two "but here is someone who is intersex explain THAT" as if a genetic anomoly undoes the most basic mammalian biology. It doesn't. We all know it doesn't, and this discussion has become so choked that it is impossible to have any meaningful discussion around it without the usual false equivalences being thrown around, polluting any real progress that could be made.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »If it was actually a man who was 6ft 8 I suppose you would feel he was being accurate as it's only a state of opinion and personal outlook
I love how you seem to think being 6ft8 somehow is more manly. Like your issue with trans people is their height. If you believe so much in definitions shouldn’t you be referring to their gametes and chromosomes and not their height. Surely it would make no difference to you if they were 5ft4 or 6ft8.
Since you’re so accurate in your definitions...0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »So just to clarify, you are claiming that "woman" has no definition whatsoever?
If something has no definition, how can you possibly know what it is - let alone generate arguments based on such a premise.
This is just fiction come to life; believe what you want, irrespective of the real world, just because it's the world you would prefer to live in. Alice in Wonderland kind of logic.
And I say this as a member of the LGBT community myself, many of whom are too scared to voice their opposition to what is going on, except when it's deemed safe to do so.
Again, if you believe you cannot understand a concept unless it is explicitly defined please explain to me how you learned your first words. Was your mother like “mamma is noun :a woman in relation to her child or children”.
And people accuse me of being absurd...0 -
The essential point here being that sex, height, and weight are not labels, they are defined realities.
A man saying he identifies as a woman is not a provable reality, its merely a feeling based on what he believes to be his definition of "woman".
As a subsequent post from you confirmed, you don't believe the word woman has an objective definition, so quite why you believe men can be women when the word doesn't have a definition is quite the summation of the madness that we currently find ourselves living in.
Actually height and weight are perfect examples. They are not “provable realities” as they cannot be measured to perfect accuracy. For example I was measured medically when I was 17. My height was 5ft8 and a half. I usually say 5ft9. Am I lying? Am I inaccurate? Could my height have changed since I was 17 even by a quarter inch? Does this make it a label?
What we call height is just an approximation of reality. A handy one. But still an approximation.
What you and your “definitions are precise and exact” mates miss is that your beliefs (which are just beliefs) are completely imprecise. Your definitions are slippery. You use words like “label” inconsistently. You believe you’re being scientific when you don’t seem to have a good grasp of science at all.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Precisely.
Also, note that language can be slippery at times.
Um this is my exact point.
You seem to be saying “language is incredibly precise and therefore trans women cannot be women but also language is slippery and imprecise when it suits me”.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Just to add to my previous point.
I am a man. I don't "identify as" a man; I simply am a man.
If I were to "identify as" a man, it would suggest or imply that what I currently am is "not a man" - otherwise identification would not be required.
And if we are to accept the conclusion that trans-women "are" women", then surely the term "identify as" is entirely redundant. In fact, trans- would be entirely redundant, too - because that person claims they "are" women, just like all other women.
Why draw distinctions if no distinction exists?
I do say trans women are women. Have done so consistently throughout the many threads on this issue.0 -
Again, if you believe you cannot understand a concept unless it is explicitly defined please explain to me how you learned your first words. Was your mother like “mamma is noun :a woman in relation to her child or children”.
And people accuse me of being absurd...
I know who my mother and father were.I do say trans women are women. Have done so consistently throughout the many threads on this issue.
Can a transwoman have a penis - and who has no wish to change that via surgery or otherwise.
If yes, by logical deduction, a transwoman is a woman - so a woman has a penis.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually height and weight are perfect examples. They are not “provable realities” as they cannot be measured to perfect accuracy. For example I was measured medically when I was 17. My height was 5ft8 and a half. I usually say 5ft9. Am I lying? Am I inaccurate? Could my height have changed since I was 17 even by a quarter inch? Does this make it a label?
What we call height is just an approximation of reality. A handy one. But still an approximation.
What you and your “definitions are precise and exact” mates miss is that your beliefs (which are just beliefs) are completely imprecise. Your definitions are slippery. You use words like “label” inconsistently. You believe you’re being scientific when you don’t seem to have a good grasp of science at all.
You are seriously losing the plot of you think that giving your height or weight slightly wrong is in any way comparable to defining yourself as the opposite sex.
Your height CAN change, your weight DOES change. Your sex doesn't.
It's beyond parody.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement