Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I will not enter discussion with anyone who refuses to define terms. It is the most basic starting point in any sort of serious discussion, and obfuscation at that point is a guarantee of bad faith arguments down the road.

Be swell.

So if I go through a every thread you have posted on I will find you defining terms at the start of each discussion?

Oops just had a look. Can’t see one example of you defining terms before entering a discussion. Why is that? Why didn’t you refuse to engage with others previously? Is this a new policy of yours?

I am swell. Thanks.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

So if I go through a every thread you have posted on I will find you defining terms at the start of each discussion?

Oops just had a look. Can’t see one example of you defining terms before entering a discussion. Why is that? Why didn’t you refuse to engage with others previously? Is this a new policy of yours?

I am swell. Thanks.

Are these serious questions?

External Association

Hey Ronnie Reagan, I'm black and I'm pagan,
I'm gay and I'm left and I'm free.
I'm a non-fundamentalist environmentalist,
Please don't bother me

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are these serious questions?

Nah we all know you don’t really need terms to be defined before entering a debate. You just don’t want to debate me. Enjoy your evening.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nah we all know you don’t really need terms to be defined before entering a debate. You just don’t want to debate me. Enjoy your evening.

No need for the “we”. Stand on your own feet.

I need the terms to be defined where they seem to be ambiguous. If you refuse to do that? Damn straight I don’t want to debate you. It would be an utterly pointless endeavour and a waste of time that could be spent tackling this issue in other, more productive ways.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No need for the “we”. Stand on your own feet.

I need the terms to be defined where they seem to be ambiguous. If you refuse to do that? Damn straight I don’t want to debate you. It would be an utterly pointless endeavour and a waste of time that could be spent tackling this issue in other, more productive ways.

But how is it ambiguous unless you don’t understand your own meaning of women and trans men and trans women.

My meaning of women is all the individuals you consider to be women (what you would call biological women), not including trans men, but including trans women.

Explain how that is unclear.

For example, do you have no idea whether I consider Hilary Clinton to be a woman?

Is it a complete mystery to you whether I consider Caitlin Jenner to be a woman or not?

If the meaning I have given is so ambiguous then you would have no idea about the above 2 questions.

But I have zero doubt that you completely understand what I mean when I say women or woman.

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

But how is it ambiguous unless you don’t understand your own meaning of women and trans men and trans women.

My meaning of women is all the individuals you consider to be women (what you would call biological women), not including trans men, but including trans women.

Explain how that is unclear.

For example, do you have no idea whether I consider Hilary Clinton to be a woman?

Is it a complete mystery to you whether I consider Caitlin Jenner to be a woman or not?

If the meaning I have given is so ambiguous then you would have no idea about the above 2 questions.

But I have zero doubt that you completely understand what I mean when I say women or woman.

We only need to define the words when there's a disagreement about the meaning. That doesn't usually happen about words like man or woman, but it's the case here. I'm sure you understand that really.

If I say footballers are allowed to hold the ball in their hands, and you think I'm mad, but I mean Gaelic football and you mean soccer, well clearly that discussion is going nowhere until we both agree on what we mean by football.

It's something similar here, except that this isn't just a game with made up rules which can be changed if we decide to. Your definition of the word woman seems to be a brand new one that most of humanity wouldn't recognise, so the onus is on you to show why the previous one is wrong and why this is a better definition than the one that humans have always used.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

But how is it ambiguous unless you don’t understand your own meaning of women and trans men and trans women.

What do you understand a woman to be?

You can't say "a woman is either a cis woman or a trans woman"; because that still begs the question of what you understand a woman to be. It's circular reasoning.

My understanding is clear: a woman is an adult human female, who has biologically XX chromosomes.

As Cymro has stated, unless you give at least some approximation as to what you believe a woman to be, it creates the impression of bad faith arguing. I'm sure that's not your intention but, for this discussion to go anywhere, you must provide your understanding of what a woman is. Not preferably not a one-word answer, either. It's best, at this stage, that you really flesh out what you mean by this.

And on your point about definitions and meaning and children, nobody is arguing that you can "only" derive understanding from definitions. Nobody has even argued the point, but you are defending it as if it is something that has been brought up. And even then, that wouldn't necessarily make a child's understanding of a given concept true.

Edit: Never mind, thought eskimo was LLMMLL posting. Don't post before coffee, kids.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Here are some questions for the people who claim I’m an absurd anti-science postmodernist. If you are so confident that meaning can only be given by definitions and definitions are perfectly precise then you should have no problem explaining the following:

1. Can children accurately use words without hearing definitions. If so, how is this possible if meaning can only be given by definitions?

2. The average adult knows about 30000 words. Has the average heard and memorised 30000 definitions? If not how do they know the meaning of these words?

3. Have you ever struggled to repeat the definition of a word you have a good understanding of? If so why? Surely you learned the meaning of the word from the definition and then to hold onto that meaning the definition is stored in your brain. And every time you hear the word you recall the definition without conscious thought.

So why would anyone struggle to repeat a definition of a word they understand?

Of course I doubt anyone will actually respond to this post.

I'm going to respond to this because, IDK, you posted it like it was some sort of "gotcha" but they're all very simple questions and none of them negate the need for defining terms in a complex discussion.

1. Can children accurately use words without hearing definitions. If so, how is this possible if meaning can only be given by definitions?

Children learn their mother tongue by being immersed in it. They infer the definitions of words from context, non-verbal cues and so on, and, as anyone who has raised/is raising small children will tell you, they get it wrong and need to be corrected very, very often. If the adults correcting them are working with an incorrect definition themselves, or do not correct the child because they find their language misuse "cute", then the child will continue on using those words incorrectly until such a time as they are corrected (or forever, if they're never corrected).

2. The average adult knows about 30000 words. Has the average heard and memorised 30000 definitions? If not how do they know the meaning of these words?

The average adult learned the language they're speaking through immersion, as above, so the same applies. Adults who are speaking in a second language have usually "mapped" the second language to their first, unless there is no equivalent word in their mother tongue. In which case, yes, they will absolutely have heard (or read, or have had signed) definitions for them.

3. Have you ever struggled to repeat the definition of a word you have a good understanding of? If so why? Surely you learned the meaning of the word from the definition and then to hold onto that meaning the definition is stored in your brain. And every time you hear the word you recall the definition without conscious thought.

The question you're asking here is either "why do people forget things", or "why can't people communicate perfectly". To the first I would say that uh... they just do. And to the second, it's because human communication is an incredibly complex process that involves both/all communicating humans' linguistic intelligence collectively and depends on an often intricately woven combination of verbal and non-verbal cues as well as understood social and cultural norms, with a little context thrown in. Because human communication is so complex, we have come up with handy ways to make discussion and debate around complex issues less ambiguous. For example, defining terms at the outset so that everyone can be "on the same page".

Is your suggestion that because humans use language imperfectly and occasionally forget the definitions of words then we might as well just give up on trying to communicate clearly at all?

I understand the linguistic difference between definition and meaning. Quite well, actually. But it's not really relevant to the ongoing discussion, you have now managed to keep this irrelevant side-chat going for several pages, and whether you call it a definition or not, it is clear that you are failing to communicate what you mean when you say "woman" in a way that does not self-reference into absurdity.

Posters aren't being asked to provide an understanding of quantum mechanics and dark energy at PhD level.

This is about our understanding of the word, woman.

It couldn't be simpler but, even after dozens of pages, I still haven't the tiniest clue what the opposition believes.

biko

I noticed LinkedIn now encourages you to add your pronouns.
Thing that only a few years ago we thought were written in stone is suddenly up for debate.

Gentlemanne

biko wrote: »

I noticed LinkedIn now encourages you to add your pronouns.
Thing that only a few years ago we thought were written in stone is suddenly up for debate.

It's probably written in HTML and JS

biko

biko wrote: »

I noticed LinkedIn now encourages you to add your pronouns.
Thing that only a few years ago we thought were written in stone is suddenly up for debate.

I will never succumb to using third-party pronouns.

He and she yes - even for those who transition, I have no problem with that as a matter of courtesy.

But once you allow carte blanche for people not only to butcher the English language with manufactured pronouns but to actively force you to use them - that's where I draw the line.

He and She yes -- as we are all either male or female.

But none of this Ze, Zir, They nonsense.

I can't think of anything more self-absorbed, narcissistic, and attention-seeking than that.

I can't indulge in someone else's narcissism. And if I started to use Zir and They, I am doing precisely that - and encouraging it. And I say no to that.

And teaching this kind of thing to children is tantamount to abuse in my opinion.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I will never succumb to using third-party pronouns.

He and she yes - even for those who transition, I have no problem with that as a matter of courtesy.

But once you allow carte blanche for people not only to butcher the English language with manufactured pronouns but to actively force you to use them - that's where I draw the line.

He and She yes -- as we are all either male or female.

But none of this Ze, Zir, They nonsense.

I can't think of anything more self-absorbed, narcissistic, and attention-seeking than that.

I can't indulge in someone else's narcissism. And if I started to use Zir and They, I am doing precisely that - and encouraging it. And I say no to that.

And teaching this kind of thing to children is tantamount to abuse in my opinion.

It’s not though and neither is letting your children play outside or have them wear masks and learn about evolution.

The things Pearl clutches are hasty to call abuse because they don’t like change.

NoLuckLarry

Overheal wrote: »

It’s not though and neither is letting your children play outside or have them wear masks and learn about evolution.

The things Pearl clutches are hasty to call abuse because they don’t like change.

It is abuse in a way though because you are teaching the child that they must pander to others delusions about themselves and fully support that delusion by using idiotic words that 99.9999% of the world population will never ever use. Sorry but there's a line there between teaching a child to speak correct English and telling them they must use this wishy washy **** a minority group have created for themselves.

NoLuckLarry

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

It is abuse in a way though because you are teaching the child that they must pander to others delusions about themselves and fully support that delusion by using idiotic words that 99.9999% of the world population will never ever use. Sorry but there's a line there between teaching a child to speak correct English and telling them they must use this wishy washy **** a minority group have created for themselves.

It's also confusing to children that there are more than two genders. And there are only two objective genders: male and female. And many children, trying to be rebellious, will cling to some alternative identity almost for the sake of it / making themselves feel special.

Thousands and thousands of subjective genders, but that's between a person and themselves.

It should not be imposed upon anyone else.

Overheal

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

It is abuse in a way though because you are teaching the child that they must pander to others delusions about themselves and fully support that delusion by using idiotic words that 99.9999% of the world population will never ever use. Sorry but there's a line there between teaching a child to speak correct English and telling them they must use this wishy washy **** a minority group have created for themselves.

Just like it was abuse to teach them about interracial couples and explaining why Jimmy has two moms?

Still unconvinced that teaching a child about a facet of progressivism in society is tantamount to abuse. That’s an insult to abuse: we have another thread about a mass grave.

Gradius

Overheal wrote: »

Just like it was abuse to teach them about interracial couples and explaining why Jimmy has two moms?

Still unconvinced that teaching a child about a facet of progressivism in society is tantamount to abuse. That’s an insult to abuse: we have another thread about a mass grave.

It's worse than quackery as it doesn't even pretend to lean into reality. It is entirely, wholly based on what someone dreamt up in their mind in direct confrontation with both actual science and common sense.

Any poor children that suffer on the hard edge of this quackery by being irreversibly physically altered and being robbed of a chance at normal adulthood should and will sue the ever-loving bejaysus out of everything in the future for allowing it to happen.

NoLuckLarry

Overheal wrote: »

Just like it was abuse to teach them about interracial couples and explaining why Jimmy has two moms?

Still unconvinced that teaching a child about a facet of progressivism in society is tantamount to abuse. That’s an insult to abuse: we have another thread about a mass grave.

Progressivism?? Is that what you call this utter nonsense?

jam_mac_jam

Overheal wrote: »

Just like it was abuse to teach them about interracial couples and explaining why Jimmy has two moms?

Still unconvinced that teaching a child about a facet of progressivism in society is tantamount to abuse. That’s an insult to abuse: we have another thread about a mass grave.

I don't think it's abuse. It's confusing telling children too young about gender theory and teaching them quite complex theories when they are still figuring out their own identities.

It's quite easy to explain some men like men and some people have different coloured skin.

It's quite different to try and explain gender theory to a child without resorting to stereotypes or undermining their sense of identity and ideas of their gender.

A lot of adults don't fully understand the progressive ideas so saying it's like two dads is a bit disingenuous. It's more complicated. These ideas have only become accepted in the past few years.

I don't think it's abuse. But age appropriateness needs to be taken into account.

Overheal

Gradius wrote: »

It's worse than quackery as it doesn't even pretend to lean into reality. It is entirely, wholly based on what someone dreamt up in their mind in direct confrontation with both actual science and common sense.

Any poor children that suffer on the hard edge of this quackery by being irreversibly physically altered and being robbed of a chance at normal adulthood should and will sue the ever-loving bejaysus out of everything in the future for allowing it to happen.

So we’ve leapt from teaching kids pronouns being abuse to a slippery slope fallacy of teaching them pronouns is tantamount to having their genitals surgically altered?

Think you’ve jumped the shark.

Overheal

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

Progressivism?? Is that what you call this utter nonsense?

See progressivism political theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Of course it’s progressivism. Not all progressivism has to work ie. Be progress to be progressivism.

Gradius

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I don't think it's abuse. It's confusing telling children too young about gender theory and teaching them quite complex theories when they are still figuring out their own identities.

It's quite easy to explain some men like men and some people have different coloured skin.

It's quite different to try and explain gender theory to a child without resorting to stereotypes or undermining their sense of identity and ideas of their gender.

A lot of adults don't fully understand the progressive ideas so saying it's like two dads is a bit disingenuous. It's more complicated. These ideas have only become accepted in the past few years.

I don't think it's abuse. But age appropriateness needs to be taken into account.

Deliberately instructing children on things that fly in the face of reality is tantamount to child abuse.

The observed world is intuitive, even for an undeveloped mind. Telling them to disbelieve all their senses and perceived logic is just plain wrong. You may as well be telling them that gravity works in reverse...it's initially confusing to them, and eventually becomes obviously wrong to most.

Fitting a square block in a square hole is educational, it is a foundational step in logic and reasoning that will be applied throughout their life. Trying to convince them that squares fit in triangles is not education, that's programming. A program that leads nowhere and has no use is detrimental.

Overheal

Gradius wrote: »

Deliberately instructing children on things that fly in the face of reality is tantamount to child abuse.

The observed world is intuitive, even for an undeveloped mind. Telling them to disbelieve all their senses and perceived logic is just plain wrong. You may as well be telling them that gravity works in reverse...it's initially confusing to them, and eventually becomes obviously wrong to most.

Fitting a square block in a square hole is educational, it is a foundational step in logic and reasoning that will be applied throughout their life. Trying to convince them that squares fit in triangles is not education, that's programming. A program that leads nowhere and has no use is detrimental.

Same vague argument used against teaching kids evolution, etc.

NoLuckLarry

Overheal wrote: »

See progressivism political theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Of course it’s progressivism. Not all progressivism has to work ie. Be progress to be progressivism.

In other words social justice - like all the brave keybord warriors align themselves to when cancelling people for opinions that hurt their little feelings? Yeah...you can keep that.

jam_mac_jam

Gradius wrote: »

Deliberately instructing children on things that fly in the face of reality is tantamount to child abuse.

The observed world is intuitive, even for an undeveloped mind. Telling them to disbelieve all their senses and perceived logic is just plain wrong. You may as well be telling them that gravity works in reverse...it's initially confusing to them, and eventually becomes obviously wrong to most.

Fitting a square block in a square hole is educational, it is a foundational step in logic and reasoning that will be applied throughout their life. Trying to convince them that squares fit in triangles is not education, that's programming. A program that leads nowhere and has no use is detrimental.

So is teaching religion abuse?

Gradius

Overheal wrote: »

So we’ve leapt from teaching kids pronouns being abuse to a slippery slope fallacy of teaching them pronouns is tantamount to having their genitals surgically altered?

Think you’ve jumped the shark.

"Teaching pronouns" is the equivalent of "unburning a fire".

There is no sense in it. Teaching nonsense is a bad thing.

And if you think that this programming doesn't lead to extreme cases of surgery then you're playing games. Are you pretending the two aren't connected?

Overheal

NoLuckLarry wrote: »

In other words social justice - like all the brave keybord warriors align themselves to when cancelling people for opinions that hurt their little feelings? Yeah...you can keep that.

As in progressivism which similarly ended slavery gave women equal rights and even birthed such outlandish, progressive ideas as “democracy”

Progress throughout history can be tied to progressivism through time.

Gradius

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

So is teaching religion abuse?

Not nearly to the same extent, no.

"Jesus exists" = unlikely given the common sense angle, but it can't be disproven either.

"Cats are dogs" = not just unlikely, but completely contrary to everything you know and reason. It can be proven scientifically 20 different ways to be false