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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What are you on about? There is loads of information

Using these medications as puberty blockers for gender dysphoria is an OFF-LABEL use. That means there certainly isn’t loads of information. If there was, they would be licensed for that usage. And that was part of the judgement in the Keira Bell case. If there was ample information, why did the Tavistock clinic not present it? The other issue was that almost all gender dysphoric minors who are prescribed puberty blockers go on to using cross sex hormones whereas research shows that many children with gender dysphoria who don’t use blockers eventually move past it. Starting on blockers sends them down a pathway.

And, honestly, prescribing blockers for precocious puberty doesn’t seem ideal to me either. One of the blockers used is a cancer drug. The idea of giving such potent medication to children doesn’t sit right with me. That’s medication that others (reluctantly) use to excise cancer cells from their body.

jam_mac_jam

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18936441.msps-overwhelmingly-vote-replace-gender-sex-rape-support-law/

Glad this passed, I 5hink the peak is over... I honestly think this ideology is starting to come undone.

Seems like a sensible amendment. At the end of the day it's the people seeking support that should have the most consideration in these circumstances.

Gatling

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Seems like a sensible amendment. At the end of the day it's the people seeking support that should have the most consideration in these circumstances.

Exactly this came up earlier in the thread , yet it was tried to be explained away that victims wouldn't be bothered who or what was examining them,

Pretty obvious it actually does matter to the victims

dartboardio

This may be offensive to some, and usually I am quite open minded. However I don't believe in 'transgender'

Its basic biology, a man, and a woman, I do believe 'gender identity' issues or dysmorphia is probably some sort of mental illness..

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Exactly this came up earlier in the thread , yet it was tried to be explained away that victims wouldn't be bothered who or what was examining them,

Pretty obvious it actually does matter to the victims

No, it didn’t come up in the thread earlier. What came up in the thread earlier was the insinuation that victims of rape who are women would be intimidated by being counselled by a man, and I made the point that based upon my experience, women and girls who were victims of rape had the complete opposite point of view because they felt that they were being judged by women and preferred to and were more comfortable talking to a man.

The only thing that’s pretty obvious from the article posted by TG is that there are some politicians willing to use anyone and any excuse to further their own agenda. In terms of physical examinations the question just doesn’t arise because the victim, whether they are a man, woman or child, it’s assumed by default they would rather be examined by a woman. The petty politics are left to people who claim to represent victims of rape. The welfare of victims of rape is a priority for all involved, from the physical examination to counselling to investigating Gardaí, the welfare of the victim is at the forefront of all their minds.

The proposal was just disingenuous shìt stirring just to get a dig at people who are transgender, it wasn’t the least bit about the welfare of people who have been raped. It comes off the back of this kind of crap where again the insinuation was made that an organisation employing people who are transgender would mean that women who were the victims of rape would be forced to talk to them. That was never the case, has never been the case, and would never be the case, but it suits some people to try and insinuate that’s would happen if people who are transgender were employed by victim support organisations as counsellors for victims of rape. It was implied that women would be the victims, again, by the likes people with a Daily Mail mentality, based upon an assumption of how women who have been raped would think. The fact that men and children have also been victims of rape is rarely ever mentioned, as is the fact that people who are transgender have also been victims of rape, rarely ever mentioned.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In terms of physical examinations it just doesn’t arise because the victim, whether they are a man, woman or child, it’s assumed by default they would rather be examined by a woman.



...the insinuation was made that an organisation employing people who are transgender would mean that women who were the victims of rape would be forced to talk to them. That was never the case, has never been the case, and would never be the case, but it suits some people to try and insinuate that’s would happen if people who are transgender were employed by victim support organisations as counsellors for victims of rape


. The fact that men and children have also been victims of rape is never mentioned, nor is the fact that people who are transgender have also been victims of rape, ever mentioned.

Point one up there - what is a woman? It appears you have a definite idea.


Point two eg Mridul Wadhwa is manager of Forth Valley Rape Crises Centre in Stirling. Cambridge Rape Crises centre actively campaigned this summer to have transwomen counsellors.

Point three when I read that article I precisely thought of men and transgender people. A transman counsellor would not understand the deep trauma particular to many men of having been raped because they were not socialised as a man, are not male by nature, and could therefore not fully understand the unique hurt of being violated as a man when for eg speaking out might be seen as admitting they were emasculated by being over powered. And other psychological issues particular to male rape.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

Point one up there - what is a woman? It appears you have a definite idea.

I do have a definite idea - a woman is a woman. Call it a circular definition if you like but it’s based upon my understanding of what a woman is, and the dictionary definition you wish me to use of “adult human female” is insufficient in my view to be able to articulate what is a woman, when in my view any woman is so much more than just “adult human female”. I’d say the same btw if you asked me what is a man, I know what a man is, and the dictionary definition of “adult human male” is insufficient. If I were asked what is a victim of rape, it’s a person who has been raped, some people prefer to use the terminology “survivor”. It’s not a term I use, but I’m easy either way with going with what a person who finds themselves in those circumstances finds easiest for themselves in how they express themselves.

Gruffalux wrote: »

Point two eg Mridul Wadhwa is manager of Forth Valley Rape Crises Centre in Stirling. Cambridge Rape Crises centre actively campaigned this summer to have transwomen counsellors.

And? How does that counter my point that women who have been the victim of rape would not be forced to talk to them? In any case I did google to see was there some significance I was missing in your example. I see she’s a fan of identity politics bingo, but there’s nothing particularly noteworthy about using her as an example of anything?

As a migrant, trans, woman of colour with a young family; I have a unique lived experience of inequality and can contribute richly to what is needed to have equality for all of us in Scotland.

She actively campaigned this summer for trans women counsellors... I’m still thinking “and?”, because I don’t see how it relates to refuting my point that women who are victims of rape were never, will never and could ever be forced to talk to someone they weren’t comfortable with. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest the Centre still has both women and men employed as counsellors, and campaigns by any organisation to employ people who are transgender do not diminish or in any way negatively impact upon the support they offer to anyone who is the victim of rape.

Sandy Brindley who is Chief Executive of Rape Crisis Scotland makes an important observation about the fact that the Scottish Forensic Medical Services Bill misses the point (I would say Sandy misses the point of this particular amendment to the FMSB) -


Gender or sex?

Johann Lamont MSP has this week lodged an amendment to the bill, to change the reference from “gender” to “sex”. It is not clear what she is trying to achieve with this – some commentators see this as a development which would exclude trans women doctors from carrying out forensic examinations.

If this is the intent of the amendment, it will not achieve this. No concerns about the use of the term gender were raised when the original bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament in December 2013; the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably. Replacing one word with another will have no impact on the availability of female doctors.

The real issue

The amendment misses the point – the key issue facing women in Scotland accessing forensic examinations is not trans women carrying out these examinations. As far as we know there are no trans examiners in Scotland.

The real issue is that in four out of ten examinations women face being examined by a male doctor. If they request a female doctor, they may be told that this is possible but will involve a considerable delay. Most women are so desperate to wash that they then agree to the exam being done by a male doctor. This is unjust and unfair.

Rape Crisis Scotland issued a statement saying they’ve had to take a break from social media due to -

In recent days we have been subject to an onslaught of abuse on social media, that has been very, very difficult. There is a clear difference between criticism of a policy position and the sort of intimidation, harassment and vitriol that we have been subject to. To protect staff wellbeing we will be taking a break from social media until further notice.

Gruffalux wrote: »

Point three when I read that article I precisely thought of men and transgender people. A transman counsellor would not understand the deep trauma particular to many men of having been raped because they were not socialised as a man, are not male by nature, and could therefore not fully understand the unique hurt of being violated as a man when for eg speaking out might be seen as admitting they were emasculated by being over powered. And other psychological issues particular to male rape.

I didn’t say hardly any thought is given to just men and transgender people though. I said as much as hardly any thought is given to men, children and people who are transgender who are the victims of rape. You appear to have overlooked the distinction, but it’s important to distinguish between people who are employed as counsellors without discrimination as to their sex or gender identity, and people who have been the victim of rape. They’re not the same group, though there may be some overlap between the two groups. Sometimes there is, but that doesn’t give them any particular insight into how someone else who isn’t them processes their experiences.

I did once bring up the issue of transference with a social worker who was half my age, and she kinda looked at me sideways as though she wasn’t sure what I meant, and she asked me what I meant, it wasn’t brought up apropos of nothing, but I figured it was easier just to let it go, though it did make me wonder what they’re being taught in college these days, or rather what she had missed out on. I did go back to college myself to answer that very question, I regretted it too because as it turned out, it was just a four year course on feminism, I had enough after two years, I couldn’t take any more. It was not what I had signed up for.

To address your point though, yes that is the assumption alright, or whatever the term is for something which is taken as common knowledge, consensus, that’s not it but hopefully you know what I’m getting at. In any case, it’s simply not true anyway as empathy and capacity for empathy isn’t based upon ones identity, and yes there is the assumption that it is more appropriate for a man or a male child who is the victim of rape to receive support from a male peer or a man, but there’s no validity to support the theory. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that a woman would be incapable of understanding the experiences of men who have been raped, or vice versa, there is no reason to suggest that a man would be incapable of understanding the experiences of women who have been raped, and there is no reason to assume that based upon their sex, there is a reason to assume that anyone would be incapable of fully understanding and empathising with a child who has been the victim of rape. There is no reason to assume that anyone who hasn’t been raped is incapable of empathising or understanding anyone who has been raped.

Essentially, your assumptions have the fundamental flaw of being based again upon identity, and assuming that a shared identity implies shared experiences or ways of thinking. At an individual level, interactions between humans just don’t function like that. Quite the opposite - that kind of behaviour leads to people expressing an inauthentic representation of themselves because they presume it’s what people want to hear and see, which will make the people they want acceptance from, accept them and provide them with support. It’s why some people who are transgender feel compelled to adhere to a stereotype of their perception of what is a woman or what is a man, which is pretty narrowly defined in their minds already, just not as ill-defined as “adult human male” or “adult human female”.

Gruffalux

Adult human female does not encompass the full definition of woman. No one is such a fool as to think that. But it is the fundamental building block of incontrovertible reality to which all other descriptors and multi-varied experiences of woman are added.

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Essentially, your assumptions have the fundamental flaw of being based again upon identity, and assuming that a shared identity implies shared experiences or ways of thinking.

Nope, pretty sure most rational people have stated that they base their assumptions, nay knowledge, on biology, as has been stated countless times.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do have a definite idea - a woman is a woman. Call it a circular definition if you like but it’s based upon my understanding of what a woman is, and the dictionary definition you wish me to use of “adult human female” is insufficient in my view to be able to articulate what is a woman, when in my view any woman is so much more than just “adult human female”. I’d say the same btw if you asked me what is a man, I know what a man is, and the dictionary definition of “adult human male” is insufficient. If I were asked what is a victim of rape, it’s a person who has been raped, some people prefer to use the terminology “survivor”. It’s not a term I use, but I’m easy either way with going with what a person who finds themselves in those circumstances finds easiest for themselves in how they express themselves.
....

Essentially, your assumptions have the fundamental flaw of being based again upon identity, and assuming that a shared identity implies shared experiences or ways of thinking. At an individual level, interactions between humans just don’t function like that. Quite the opposite - that kind of behaviour leads to people expressing an inauthentic representation of themselves because they presume it’s what people want to hear and see, which will make the people they want acceptance from, accept them and provide them with support. It’s why some people who are transgender feel compelled to adhere to a stereotype of their perception of what is a woman or what is a man, which is pretty narrowly defined in their minds already, just not as ill-defined as “adult human male” or “adult human female”.

Jesus. This level of nonsense is actually amusing.

It's not "a circular definition if you like" - it's "a circular definition", full stop.

And as such, it's worth exactly nothing as a definition.

Look, an apple is an apple, a house is a house, a thug is a thug, a dog is a dog. Call them circular definitions but they are based upon my understanding of what each of those things is. :rolleyes:

It's just a pity that they don't help discussion because someone else can say the same thing, but be talking about something entirely different. The whole point of a definition is that it describes the thing in different terms.

As for your claim that other definitions are based on identity - you think yours isn't? It's nothing but the identity, and unfortunately it hasn't even managed to define that identity, just restate it.

I've mostly got into the habit of just rolling my eyes and scrolling past your increasingly poor posts, but this one was just so funny I had to respond. You're trying too hard to be an edgelord, Jack - you're just not up to it.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Jesus. This level of nonsense is actually amusing.

It's not "a circular definition if you like" - it's "a circular definition", full stop.

And as such, it's worth exactly nothing as a definition.

Look, an apple is an apple, a house is a house, a thug is a thug, a dog is a dog. Call them circular definitions but they are based upon my understanding of what each of those things is. :rolleyes:

It's just a pity that they don't help discussion because someone else can say the same thing, but be talking about something entirely different. The whole point of a definition is that it describes the thing in different terms.

As for your claim that other definitions are based on identity - you think yours isn't? It's nothing but the identity, and unfortunately it hasn't even managed to define that identity, just restate it.

I've mostly got into the habit of just rolling my eyes and scrolling past your increasingly poor posts, but this one was just so funny I had to respond. You're trying too hard to be an edgelord, Jack - you're just not up to it.

The reason I said Gruffalox can call it a circular definition if she likes isn’t because it is a circular definition, but rather that calling it a circular definition doesn’t negate the point that I can do the same thing for “adult human female”. I can do the same thing for anything. Simply being adamant that someone must adhere to your words and your definitions is what limits and stifles any discussion. Calling me an edgelord while demanding that I accept “adult human female” is the definition of a woman... Just how many people do you imagine outside of a medical, legal or scientific context use the term “adult human female”? I almost forgot to mention incels - they commonly refer to “females”. Who’s being edgy using the term “adult human female” in a social context knowing full well it’s intended to wind people up the wrong way?

I didn’t claim either that other definitions aren’t based upon identity, I was referring to Gruffalox’ assumptions about anyone’s capacity to relate to another human being. Won’t even bother with the snide personal jabs, I’ve no doubt you’re well aware already that they don’t help any discussion, but I’m happy for you either way. You do you and all that.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason I said Gruffalox can call it a circular definition if she likes isn’t because it is a circular definition, but rather that calling it a circular definition doesn’t negate the point that I can do the same thing for “adult human female”. I can do the same thing for anything. Simply being adamant that someone must adhere to your definitions is what limits and stifles any discussion. Calling me an edgelord while demanding that I accept “adult human female” is the definition of a woman... Just how many people do you imagine outside of a medical, legal or scientific context use the term “adult human female”? I almost forgot to mention incels - they commonly refer to “females”. Who’s being edgy using the term “adult human female” in a social context knowing full well it’s intended to wind people up the wrong way?

I didn’t claim either that other definitions aren’t based upon identity, I was referring to Gruffalox’ assumptions about anyone’s capacity to relate to another human being. Won’t even bother with the snide personal jabs, I’ve no doubt you’re well aware already that they don’t help any discussion, but I’m happy for you either way. You do you and all that.

I've never used the expression adult human female myself, never mind demanded that anyone else use it, so you can drop your straw man right there.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I've never used the expression adult human female myself, never mind demanded that anyone else use it, so you can drop your straw man right there.

That’s what your whole perspective is predicated upon! That you define woman fundamentally as “adult human female”. There’s no strawman there, you’re critiquing my posts and accusing me of being an edgelord because I point out not just the futility of your attempt to limit woman to a dictionary definition which suits you, but also the fact that nobody can be obligated to care how you define anything. I couldn’t care less if you personally do or don’t use the term, you know exactly what I was referring to - the people who do use the term.

And it was on that basis that I asked you the question - outside of medical, legal and scientific contexts, how many people do you imagine use the term “adult human female” in a social context?

It’s not a trick question, it couldn’t be more straightforward, should be easy enough for you to offer your opinion.

So a woman is a woman, but that can also be a man who feels he is a woman. (or anything at all that you choose to define as a woman)

Gotcha.

(for ****s sake)

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So a woman is a woman, but that can also be a man who feels he is a woman.

Gotcha.

(for ****s sake)

Not in my view, but if someone else is of that view I don’t particularly care one way or the other. Same as any other beliefs people have that I don’t share. I’m not obligated nor can I be compelled to take them seriously. Nor can anyone else for that matter, and the same applies to them about other people’s beliefs too - they’re not obligated nor can they be compelled to take other people’s beliefs seriously.

Quantum Erasure

The only thing that’s pretty obvious from the article posted by TG is that there are some politicians willing to use anyone and any excuse to further their own agenda. In terms of physical examinations the question just doesn’t arise because the victim, whether they are a man, woman or child, it’s assumed by default they would rather be examined by a woman

so, the issue just doesn't arise...?

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

so, the issue just doesn't arise...?

Being honest, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. What are you getting at?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not in my view, but if someone else is of that view I don’t particularly care one way or the other. Same as any other beliefs people have that I don’t share. I’m not obligated nor can I be compelled to take them seriously. Nor can anyone else for that matter, and the same applies to them about other people’s beliefs too - they’re not obligated nor can they be compelled to take other people’s beliefs seriously.

Unless it is a law which would define the uttering of the disbelief as a hate crime

or

If it demands that biological sex segregated sports or spaces are made available to anyone who defines themselves as a woman.

You either really don't get it, or you revel in being a contrarian.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason I said Gruffalox can call it a circular definition if she likes isn’t because it is a circular definition, but rather that calling it a circular definition doesn’t negate the point that I can do the same thing for “adult human female”. I can do the same thing for anything. Simply being adamant that someone must adhere to your definitions is what limits and stifles any discussion.

Oh and by the way, no you can't. One is a circular definition, the other isn't.
It may be blindingly obvious but that's a different thing. Although even then, clearly it isn't obvious to all, since some posters seem to think that "woman" doesn't just refer to adult human females, but includes adult males and others think it includes pregnant 10 year olds - different people, different discussion, but same bloody prioritising of their own ideology over reality.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s what your whole perspective is predicated upon! That you define woman fundamentally as “adult human female”. There’s no strawman there, you’re critiquing my posts and accusing me of being an edgelord because I point out not just the futility of your attempt to limit woman to a dictionary definition which suits you, but also the fact that nobody can be obligated to care how you define anything. I couldn’t care less if you personally do or don’t use the term, you know exactly what I was referring to - the people who do use the term.

And it was on that basis that I asked you the question - outside of medical, legal and scientific contexts, how many people do you imagine use the term “adult human female” in a social context?

It’s not a trick question, it couldn’t be more straightforward, should be easy enough for you to offer your opinion.

All totally irrelevant to my point that "a woman is a woman" is a genuinely circular definition, making it totally redundant, whereas "a woman is (+any other combination of words)" may be disputable, but is not a circular argument.

One can argue with an actual definition, but not with a circular one. That you appear unable to see that makes me think that maybe I was wrong and you're not actually doing this deliberately.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Unless it is a law which would define the uttering of the disbelief as a hate crime

or

If it demands that biological sex segregated sports or spaces are made available to anyone who defines themselves as a woman.

You either really don't get it, or you revel in being a contrarian.

“The uttering of the disbelief”, you really imagine anyone is that stupid that they don’t know what you really mean is harassment, and yes, depending upon context and circumstances it could have any number of negative consequences for the person who insists that they have a right to engage in such behaviour. That’s going quite a bit further than simply not taking a person seriously.

Same with your second example.

I get it alright, but I don’t revel in pretending to be offended just to get one up on someone in a discussion where they’re trying to define reality based entirely upon how they see it and everyone else must be compelled to adhere to their “reality”. The irony can’t be lost on you.

Girly Gal

I get it alright, but I don’t revel in pretending to be offended just to get one up on someone in a discussion where they’re trying to define reality based entirely upon how they see it and everyone else must be compelled to adhere to their “reality”. The irony can’t be lost on you.[/QUOTE]

Tbf Jack you seem to be one of the worst offenders when it comes to trying to compel others to adhere to your "reality "

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

“The uttering of the disbelief”, you really imagine anyone is that stupid that they don’t know what you really mean is harassment, and yes, depending upon context and circumstances it could have any number of negative consequences for the person who insists that they have a right to engage in such behaviour. That’s going quite a bit further than simply not taking a person seriously.

Same with your second example.

I get it alright, but I don’t revel in pretending to be offended just to get one up on someone in a discussion where they’re trying to define reality based entirely upon how they see it and everyone else must be compelled to adhere to their “reality”. The irony can’t be lost on you.

Saying that you do not believe a man, who is dressed and acting like a typical woman, is a real woman is hate speech and harassment. Saying you oppose biological men in changing rooms for girls and women is hate speech and harassment.

Thats where we are at the moment with people of the same mindset as you.

Yet you continue to say that nobody is obliged to take a belief seriously?

And you think that I am the one attempting to "compel everyone to adhere to their reality" by stating that a man is indeed a man and a woman is indeed a woman (by using definitions and biological reasoning) yet you advocate for people to ignore biology and accept other "realities"???

Where do you draw the line Jack? When does someone else's demonstrably false "reality" become too much to adhere to?

Is an anorexic's reality to be accepted?

A paranoid schizophrenic?

Someone with body integrity identity disorder?

Or is it just this particular bandwagon you've hitched a ride on that you are willing to ignore common sense and biology?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh and by the way, no you can't. One is a circular definition, the other isn't.
It may be blindingly obvious but that's a different thing. Although even then, clearly it isn't obvious to all, since some posters seem to think that "woman" doesn't just refer to adult human females, but includes adult males and others think it includes pregnant 10 year olds - different people, different discussion, but same bloody prioritising of their own ideology over reality.

Yes, that’s my point - I or anyone who wants to can express themselves using terminology which suits them, they aren’t limited to using terminology which suits you, nor are you limited to using terminology which suits them. It has absolutely no practical application whatsoever and is rather like calling a vibrator a torch - in the dark one is more useful than the other depending upon what you want to do with it. I wouldn’t assume batteries are included either.

Fcukall to do with any pretensions about science or biology or any of the rest of it.

volchitsa wrote: »

All totally irrelevant to my point that "a woman is a woman" is a genuinely circular definition, making it totally redundant, whereas "a woman is (+any other combination of words)" may be disputable, but is not a circular argument.

One can argue with an actual definition, but not with a circular one. That you appear unable to see that makes me think that maybe I was wrong and you're not actually doing this deliberately.

You’re correct, they can’t argue with a circular definition. It doesn’t make it redundant as it works for me. That it doesn’t work for you isn’t my problem, any more than I don’t use terms like “trans woman” or “trans man” isn’t a problem for me either, and has never been a problem for anyone I’ve associated with who referred to themselves as either a woman or a man when from my perspective, they were either a woman or a man, and it wasn’t important as nobody expressed any kind of interest in a sexual relationship.

One eyed Jack

Girly Gal wrote: »

Tbf Jack you seem to be one of the worst offenders when it comes to trying to compel others to adhere to your "reality "

I’m relieved at least you acknowledge it’s based upon your perception rather than anything I’ve actually done. You’d have some justification for an accusation if I was going around referring to people as TERFS and bigots and whipping out willy “truth bombs” hoping for a meagre thanks here or there. I’ve given up making jokes though, so that may come as a relief.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, that’s my point - I or anyone who wants to can express themselves using terminology which suits them, they aren’t limited to using terminology which suits you, nor are you limited to using terminology which suits them. It has absolutely no practical application whatsoever and is rather like calling a vibrator a torch - in the dark one is more useful than the other depending upon what you want to do with it. I wouldn’t assume batteries are included either.

Fcukall to do with any pretensions about science or biology or any of the rest of it.



You’re correct, they can’t argue with a circular definition. It doesn’t make it redundant as it works for me. That it doesn’t work for you isn’t my problem, any more than I don’t use terms like “trans woman” or “trans man” isn’t a problem for me either, and has never been a problem for anyone I’ve associated with who referred to themselves as either a woman or a man when from my perspective, they were either a woman or a man, and it wasn’t important as nobody expressed any kind of interest in a sexual relationship.

I don't even know what you're on about here, and I'm fairly sure neither do you - the difference between a vibrator and a torch? FFS.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't even know what you're on about here, and I'm fairly sure neither do you - the difference between a vibrator and a torch? FFS.

Apparently they can be called whatever anyone wants because definitions are a social construct and should be interchangeable depending on what the user wants it to mean, rendering words and definitions meaningless by virtue of meaning anything.

(unless it is what anyone defines as hate speech or harassment, and that also could be anything as words can mean whatever anyone decides)

It's quite simple......

:pac::pac::pac:

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't even know what you're on about here, and I'm fairly sure neither do you - the difference between a vibrator and a torch? FFS.

Very simple - there’s no practical application in how one chooses to name or define anything. Knowing the difference between things though has plenty of practical application depending upon how you wish to use it and what you wish to use it for.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

“The uttering of the disbelief”, you really imagine anyone is that stupid that they don’t know what you really mean is harassment, and yes, depending upon context and circumstances it could have any number of negative consequences for the person who insists that they have a right to engage in such behaviour. That’s going quite a bit further than simply not taking a person seriously.

Same with your second example.

I get it alright, but I don’t revel in pretending to be offended just to get one up on someone in a discussion where they’re trying to define reality based entirely upon how they see it and everyone else must be compelled to adhere to their “reality”. The irony can’t be lost on you.

There is only one one reality Jack. Not 'my' reality and 'your' reality, but just reality. Someone who thinks the Earth is flat is wrong, because it isn't flat.

The word women has a scientific underpinning i.e. one must be female to begin with. Across all human languages there is a word to describe those that are female, human and adults, in Spanish it is 'mujer', in the Igbo language it is nwanyị. All these words refer to the same thing, they all have a common meaning. The evolution of the exact word used to describe adult humans who are females means that the word may have been spelled differently or pronounced slightly differently across the various languages but it has always referred to the same thing due to Humans and the fact that we have 2 sexes being the product of mother nature, and as such outside of our control. The reason the word means what it means is due us describing the natural world (through our use of language). Therefore, to say that the word women (and it's translation in various languages) is a mere dictionary definition is incorrect, as it is a word that describes a particular aspect of the natural World that cannot be changed.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Apparently they can be called whatever anyone wants because definitions are a social construct and should be interchangeable depending on what the user wants it to mean, rendering words and definitions meaningless by virtue of meaning anything.

(unless it is what anyone defines as hate speech or harassment, and that also could be anything as words can mean whatever anyone decides)

It's quite simple.

You seem desperate to make out like you’re the victim of these laws which you appear to have made up in your head, yet you criticise others who point out to you that you’re making stuff up to play the victim. You can do that of course, I really don’t care one way or the other, but I’m sure there is no shortage of people who will take you seriously and believe what you’re actually saying is true.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Very simple - there’s no practical application in how one chooses to name or define anything. Knowing the difference between things though has plenty of practical application depending upon how you wish to use it and what you wish to use it for.

Oh my dear lord. There is no practical application to language, that is what you are arguing here, whether you realise it or not.