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

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

Agreed. And you’ve made my point perfectly.

I completely understand what you mean when you say footballer now (that you mean Gaelic footballers) and at no point did you offer a definition of any of the terms you’ve used.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

I have given an approximation of what I consider a woman to be. Multiple times.

It’s everyone you consider to be a woman, not including trans men, including trans women.

That’s more than approximate. It’s perfectly clear. The only way it wouldn’t be clear is if your own meaning of women was unclear. As I have highlighted where our meanings converge and diverge.

I’ll ask again (though I fully expect to be ignored).

Are you confused as to whether I would consider Hillary Clinton a woman?

Are you confused as to whether I would consider Caitlin Jenner a woman?

If I have been unable to convey even the “approximate” meaning of what I consider to be a woman then you could not even fathom a guess at the above questions.

As for arguing in bad faith I have said definitions are only approximations of meaning and I can communicate meaning more accurately without them. How is it bad faith then to not state definitions.

It would be bad faith to argue against giving definitions of terms and then give a definition. As you keep insisting I do.

It’s a bad faith argument to insist you don’t understand the meaning someone assigns to a word when you clearly understand it. Just as I understand what volchita means when they use the word footballer. I suppose you didn’t understand what they meant either?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.



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).



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.



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.

We are in agreement then that meaning does not require definitions. That’s a great starting point.

So even though you would like a definition, it is perfectly possible to communicate meaning without them.

For instance Volchita easily communicated to me without a definition that when they use the word footballer they mean a Gaelic football player and not soccer player. I completely understand his meaning. I do not need to throw a temper tantrum and insist he provide me with a definition of footballer simply because the meaning he has for footballer differs from the meaning I have (soccer player).

Now if you agree that definitions (while you may like them) are not necessary for humans to communicate, and you understood what Volchita means by footballer without needing him to define it, why on earth do you insist that I define the word “woman”?

Flogging a dead horse at this stage lads.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

I believe trans women are women and cis women are women and trans men are not women.

You really can’t tell from this whether or not I consider Hilary Clinton to be a woman???

That says more about you than it does about me.

LLMMLL

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.

If you tell a boy “some men like men” and they say “we I like my friend Jimmy he is my best friend, am I gay?” Then what?

Things are as easy or as difficult to explain as we make them.

LLMMLL

Gradius wrote: »

Sorry, I'm just making a rational estimation of your belief systems. Maybe I'm wrong and you don't believe any of this stuff.

But if you do, maybe you'd care to explain how "some other people" have belief systems that allow

1) anatomy to be dismissed
2) chemistry to be dismissed
3) physiology to be dismissed
4) eyes, ears, and logic to be dismissed

Can you explain that?

I can take this one.

I don’t believe anatomy chemistry or physiology should be dismissed. Would be nice if people actually understood them though.

Yes the evidence of ears and eyes can often be dismissed.

No logic should not be dismissed but it’s rare for anyone’s arguments to violate logic.

Wall Street journal on a California law allowing self identified transwomen into female prisons.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/male-inmates-in-womens-prisons-11622474215

Money quotes.

Because female inmates are typically far less violent than male ones, women’s prisons like Chowchilla don’t separate inmates based on the severity of their crimes. “We’re all mixed together,” Ms. Ichikawa said. “The people who’ve murdered their children are in the same room as the people who’ve stolen boxers from Walmart. ”

Also unlike men’s prison, inmates at Chowchilla are housed eight to a room, with a sink and toilet inside the cell and only a cowboy door for modesty.

many of the men who are transferring there aren’t even on hormonal medication. “They’re getting a full erection,” she said. “So you’re locked in this room, 24/7, with a man and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Complaining would be discrimination.

If you tell the police you don’t want to live with a man, or you’re afraid or whatever, you’ll get a disciplinary infraction. So you’re basically punished for being scared.”

Numbers aren’t that small either.

Spokeswoman Terry Thornton of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation says 264 male prisoners have declared a nonmale identity and formally requested transfer to women’s facilities.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

We are in agreement then that meaning does not require definitions.

Sure. If you like.

LLMMLL wrote: »

So even though you would like a definition, it is perfectly possible to communicate meaning without them.

It is, but not in any way that will have me continuing discussion with you. If you refuse to give me your definition of "woman", I will not discuss sex/gender issues with you. I don't think that's unreasonable.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I do not need to throw a temper tantrum and insist he provide me with a definition of footballer simply because the meaning he has for footballer differs from the meaning I have (soccer player).

Your read of emotions is odd, unless I missed you having a temper tantrum at some point?

In any case, you still have not given your "meaning" of women. "I mean anyone you would think of as a woman" with caveats and exceptions doesn't cut it, not because it's a "meaning" rather than a "definition", but because it is self-referential and therefore circular. It cannot convey meaning. Indeed, it acts as a direct obstacle to a person wanting to make inference. Which I suspect is rather the point of it.

Should your "meaning" begin to make sense in a way that is relatively straightforward to engage with, then by all means we can talk. Until then, the continued refusal to say what "woman" means, or to define the word in your own subjective way, is absolutely a barrier for me, and not one I am in any way hesitant to admit.

BattleCorp

fvp4 wrote: »

Wall Street journal on a California law allowing self identified transwomen into female prisons.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/male-inmates-in-womens-prisons-11622474215

Money quotes.

Because female inmates are typically far less violent than male ones, women’s prisons like Chowchilla don’t separate inmates based on the severity of their crimes. “We’re all mixed together,” Ms. Ichikawa said. “The people who’ve murdered their children are in the same room as the people who’ve stolen boxers from Walmart. ”

Also unlike men’s prison, inmates at Chowchilla are housed eight to a room, with a sink and toilet inside the cell and only a cowboy door for modesty.

many of the men who are transferring there aren’t even on hormonal medication. “They’re getting a full erection,” she said. “So you’re locked in this room, 24/7, with a man and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Complaining would be discrimination.

If you tell the police you don’t want to live with a man, or you’re afraid or whatever, you’ll get a disciplinary infraction. So you’re basically punished for being scared.”

Numbers aren’t that small either.

Spokeswoman Terry Thornton of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation says 264 male prisoners have declared a nonmale identity and formally requested transfer to women’s facilities.

Before I get lynched, I'm not saying all transgender people are like this but if I was a biological woman prisoner, I wouldn't fancy getting locked up with Barbie Kardashian.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure. If you like.

I do like. Because it’s true

It is, but not in any way that will have me continuing discussion with you. If you refuse to give me your definition of "woman", I will not discuss sex/gender issues with you. I don't think that's unreasonable.

It’s never unreasonable to decide you do not want to continue a discussion. Feel free to stop at any time.

Your read of emotions is odd, unless I missed you having a temper tantrum at some point?

In any case, you still have not given your "meaning" of women. "I mean anyone you would think of as a woman" with caveats and exceptions doesn't cut it, not because it's a "meaning" rather than a "definition", but because it is self-referential and therefore circular. It cannot convey meaning. Indeed, it acts as a direct obstacle to a person wanting to make inference. Which I suspect is rather the point of it.

I haven’t made any circular references. I’ve directly referenced your understanding of the word woman, trans woman, and trans man. There is no circularity there. Obviously you wanted me to make a definition so you could claim it’s circular and now that I haven’t given you a definition are going to try and still claim that the meaning I have was circular. So explain to me how this is circular:

I consider a woman to be any individual you consider to be a woman, not including trans men, including trans women.

Unless you think there is no meaning or definition of trans men and trans women. Do you understand those words/concepts?

Should your "meaning" begin to make sense in a way that is relatively straightforward to engage with, then by all means we can talk. Until then, the continued refusal to say what "woman" means, or to define the word in your own subjective way, is absolutely a barrier for me, and not one I am in any way hesitant to admit.

My meaning is very straightforward to engage with. In fact I’ve been engaging with multiple people who disagree with me for about 3 years in the various trans threads on boards and nobody has ever felt that they can’t engage with me before or failed to understand what I mean when I say woman. They may disagree on the meaning but they clearly understood. I usually have a queue of people ready to engage with me on this topic.

So if you feel you cannot engage that is fine. But let’s be clear. Your feelings on this are personal and nothing to do with me. You don’t want to engage. I fully support this.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s everyone you consider to be a woman, not including trans men, including trans women.

Just to show how ridiculous this has gotten, imagine if we were to stop a random biological woman in the street and ask, "what is a reasonable definition of a woman?", and the response you received was:

"It's everything you consider to be a woman, plus trans women".

It's incredible. Quite incredible...

The whole point of the definition is to literally write off all standard biology, and instead focus on the mind - on the mind of a biological woman and the mind of a transwoman, thereby somehow legitimately equating the two.

That's the trick at play here, and it's a gross disservice to women who are literally written off after decades of accruing their rights.

Annasopra

eskimohunt wrote: »

Just to show how ridiculous this has gotten, imagine if we were to stop a random biological woman in the street and ask, "what is a reasonable definition of a woman?", and the response you received was:

"It's everything you consider to be a woman, plus trans women".

It's incredible. Quite incredible...

The whole point of the definition is to literally write off all standard biology, and instead focus on the mind - on the mind of a biological woman and the mind of a transwoman, thereby somehow legitimately equating the two.

That's the trick at play here, and it's a gross disservice to women who are literally written off after decades of accruing their rights.

Not at all. Recognition of trans women does not in any way harm cis women.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just to show how ridiculous this has gotten, imagine if we were to stop a random biological woman in the street and ask, "what is a reasonable definition of a woman?", and the response you received was:

"It's everything you consider to be a woman, plus trans women".

It's incredible. Quite incredible...

The whole point of the definition is to literally write off all standard biology, and instead focus on the mind - on the mind of a biological woman and the mind of a transwoman, thereby somehow legitimately equating the two.

That's the trick at play here, and it's a gross disservice to women who are literally written off after decades of accruing their rights.

It is legitimate to equate them.

Can you answer my questions?

Are you in complete confusion as to whether I consider Hilary Clinton to be a woman?

Girly Gal

What's the definition of a man?

Girly Gal

Girly Gal wrote: »

What's the definition of a man?

Anyone who identifies as one apparently.

Girly Gal

Girly Gal wrote: »

What's the definition of a man?

Everything you consider to be a man, plus transmen.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Everything you consider to be a man, plus transmen.

And excluding trans women.

eskimohunt

eskimohunt wrote: »

Everything you consider to be a man, plus transmen.

"You" as in girly gal? Or you?

Or me?

Girly Gal

Girly Gal wrote: »

What's the definition of a man?

eskimohunt wrote: »

Everything you consider to be a man, plus transmen.

Deleted User wrote: »

"You" as in girly gal? Or you?

Or me?

The quasi-religion almost took me in, but I escaped.

Girly Gal, the correct answer is: adult human male with XY chromosomes.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The quasi-religion almost took me in, but I escaped.

Girly Gal, the correct answer is: adult human male with XY chromosomes.

That’s inaccurate as it leaves out trans men.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

That’s inaccurate as it leaves out trans men.

Lol.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

That’s inaccurate as it leaves out trans men.

That's the point. :rolleyes:

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

Not at all. Recognition of trans women does not in any way harm cis women.

Not looking too good for the cis women in the California prison I mentioned earlier.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

Not looking too good for the CIA women in the California prison I mentioned earlier.

Or women's sport.

Take the recent case of Laurel Hubbard joining women's Olympic weightlifting, for example (of many hundreds of possible examples).

A total disgrace and abhorrent scandal.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's the point. :rolleyes:

Well if you’re ok with being inaccurate to make a point that’s up to you.

Purple is a Fruit

eskimohunt wrote: »

Just to show how ridiculous this has gotten, imagine if we were to stop a random biological woman in the street and ask, "what is a reasonable definition of a woman?", and the response you received was:

"It's everything you consider to be a woman, plus trans women".

It's incredible. Quite incredible...

The whole point of the definition is to literally write off all standard biology, and instead focus on the mind - on the mind of a biological woman and the mind of a transwoman, thereby somehow legitimately equating the two.

That's the trick at play here, and it's a gross disservice to women who are literally written off after decades of accruing their rights.

I find it hurtful but concern for feelings only goes one way.

Also, saying that transwomen are women (which therefore makes me a transwoman surely) is mere recognition of transwomen apparently. As if it's not possible to recognise transwomen without agreeing with TWAW. I have always recognised transwomen. I have never denied them or the validity of their experience. I have never ever been someone who has said they're just men or deadnamed them. I strongly disagree with those clear transphobes who say transwomen are perverted/mentally disturbed/predatory. The one thing I won't agree with is redefining the meaning of woman - but I absolutely accept that gender is fluid.

The above causes me to be labelled a terf, transphobe and bigot though - it's utterly cuckoo.

LLMMLL

Purple is a Fruit wrote: »

I find it hurtful but concern for feelings only goes one way.

Also, saying that transwomen are women (which therefore makes me a transwoman).

What? No it doesn’t.

A is a B has never implied that B is an A. Using you own username as an example of bananas are fruit it doesn’t mean fruit are bananas.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

What? No it doesn’t.

A is a B has never implied that B is an A. Using you own username as an example of bananas are fruit it doesn’t mean fruit are bananas.

Men (A) cannot be women (B).

QED.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Men (A) cannot be women (B).

QED.

If that was an actual principle then:

Women (A) cannot be females (B)

QED?