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

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The meanings of words aren't their definitions? Unless I have read that wrong, that's the absolute craziest thing I have read on here.

No definitions approximate the meanings of words. How do children learn what words mean? Do their parents read.out the dictionary to them?

The crazy thing about this is that people always make fun of me on here for pointing this out but linguists would be laughing at you guys, not me.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

As you can see from these 6 points postmodernism and its hand maiden deconstructionism is an active attempt to overthrow ..........

What I say about definitions has nothing to do with post modernism. It is accepted fact. Talk to a linguist, developmental psychologist, cognitive scientist etc. About the acquisition of language, use of language, definitions etc. And they'll tell you exactly what I have said and it will have nothing to do with post modernism.

LLMMLL

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Your premise is incorrect from the off.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with how women 'have to' look stereotypically feminine.

As an example, very few people if anyone has ever observed that eg Fatima Whitbread is 'stereotypically feminine' in appearance.

It's believable that she's a woman though, because your experience of observing the non-stereotypical is far from worthy of special mention. Of course all doubt on this matter would be removed if we were to discover that FW gave birth to a child.

The individual in the image we are discussing, on the other hand - the vast majority of people I would say, can see at first glance that we are looking at a transwoman. It might be something to do with how we have evolved over thousands of years to make an instant determination.

In making a distinction between these two cases, I refer to my own half-century of observing the stereo- and non-stereotypical, as well as some biology to draw the following conclusion -

a transwoman is not, when all is said and done, a woman.

They may guess she is a transwoman but they don't know. Equally they may look at a cis woman and guess she is a trans woman and be completely wrong.

Your example of Fatima Whitbread who I had never seen before does nothing to help your point. She could be trans for all I know, I genuinely could not make an instant determination about her.

On the one hand you seem to be saying we can make instant determinations but on the other hand you also seem to be saying we need to know FW has given birth to.make these determinations.

BTW I hate that we are debating women's appearances but this is what people who are supposedly.concerned with women's rights are consistently bringing up. I personally have no issues with how stereotypically feminine cis women or trans women appear.to be.

Mic 1972

Why are we even using the word "cis woman"?
A woman is a woman, we all know very well what that means. Trans Women should be accepted by society but they remain Trans Women

LLMMLL

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Why are we even using the word "cis woman"?
A woman is a woman, we all know very well what that means. Trans Women should be accepted by society but they remain Trans Women

Basically because you don't control how other people speak....

jam_mac_jam

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Why are we even using the word "cis woman"?
A woman is a woman, we all know very well what that means. Trans Women should be accepted by society but they remain Trans Women

It just makes it easier to define exactly who you are talking about.

Mic 1972

LLMMLL wrote: »

Basically because you don't control how other people speak....

Fair enough, but you can't force new meaningless terms into a conversation and expect people to accept and use those terms.
I'm a man, no way i'm going to identify myself as a cis man nor i'm gong to use the term cis when i refer to other men or women.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

The crazy thing about this is that people always make fun of me on here for pointing this out but linguists would be laughing at you guys, not me.

Why would it matter what linguist's are thinking exactly .

It's just another way to put down posters nothing more

LLMMLL

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Fair enough, but you can't force new meaningless terms into a conversation and expect people to accept and use those terms.
I'm a man, no way i'm going to identify myself as a cis man nor i'm gong to use the term cis when i refer to other men or women.

I don't expect anyone to use the term cis. I just use it myself.

silverharp

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Why are we even using the word "cis woman"?
A woman is a woman, we all know very well what that means. Trans Women should be accepted by society but they remain Trans Women

I try to keep to these grammar rules , Irish woman , Asian woman, transwoman or trans-woman. there is no need for the term "cis woman"

Gruffalux

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Why are we even using the word "cis woman"?
A woman is a woman, we all know very well what that means. Trans Women should be accepted by society but they remain Trans Women

"We" are not using the term cis woman. A select few are trying to normalise it via astro turfing.
Some others use it without thinking about what they are doing.
Which is accepting the the indivisible category known as Woman can be divided into male women and female women. Which it cannot.
Of course it all gets a little post modern ( despite protestations to the contrary) when we stray into the wilder territory of transfemales and indecipherable tables.

In spite of this cis befuddlement the trans state is also claimed to reflect the reality of what was, what is and what will be forever to come, glory be, which would surely make one wonder - it means "trans" what?

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Why would it matter what linguist's are thinking exactly .

It's just another way to put down posters nothing more

Because linguists have a little more insight into language than the average person.

I don't expect people to be up to date on linguistic research. I just find it odd that people are so 100% confident in their opinions on linguistics and are actually completely wrong.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

which would surely make one wonder - it means "trans" what?

Transwoman is a word itself, the trans part does not need to have a separate meaning that is consistent across all it's uses.

Are red herrings red?

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Transwoman is a word itself, the trans part does not need to have a separate meaning that is consistent across all it's uses.

Are red herrings red?

Are seahorses horses?

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Are seahorses horses?

No

Mic 1972

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't expect anyone to use the term cis. I just use it myself.

This is the same as members of Scientology using terms like OTC or Suppressed personalities with people who are outside of the cult and have no idea what the terms mean.
I can see the intention to introduce the term "cis" into everyday culture, but people aren't gonna have it.
The term "cis" belongs to the internal post modernist LGBT jargon

silverharp

LLMMLL wrote: »

Transwoman is a word itself, the trans part does not need to have a separate meaning that is consistent across all it's uses.

Are red herrings red?

im guessing some of the wokeraiti would be offended that you made a compound world out of it?

LLMMLL

Mic 1972 wrote: »

This is the same as members of Scientology using terms like OTC or Suppressed personalities with people who are outside of the cult and have no idea what the terms mean.
I can see the intention to introduce the term "cis" into everyday culture, but people aren't gonna have it.
The term "cis" belongs to the internal post modernist LGBT jargon

No idea what you're on about with Scientology.

I'm not trying to introduce it to anyone. This thread has about 20 people on it. It's never going to influence everyday culture thankfully.

I simply use it myself. And will continue to do so.

LLMMLL

silverharp wrote: »

im guessing some of the wokeraiti would be offended that you made a compound world out of it?

Would they? Am I supposed to care about this?

Mic 1972

LLMMLL wrote: »

No idea what you're on about with Scientology.

I'm not trying to introduce it to anyone. This thread has about 20 people on it. It's never going to influence everyday culture thankfully.

I simply use it myself. And will continue to do so.

Scientology is a cult, and as such it shares many dynamics with the current woke cult, such as the introduction into daily language of words like "cis gender" that have no meaning to the vast majority of people.
The vast majority of people dont question or look for words to identify their gender.

LLMMLL

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Scientology is a cult, and as such it shares many dynamics with the current woke cult, such as the introduction into daily language of words like "cis gender" that have no meaning to the vast majority of people.
The vast majority of people dont question or look for words to identify their gender.

New words are invented all the time. Were you up in arms when someone started using the word "mouse" for the device that enables you to move a computer cursor? Were you fuming "a mouse is a small furry rodent!!!!".

Mic 1972

LLMMLL wrote: »

New words are invented all the time. Were you up in arms when someone started using the word "mouse" for the device that enables you to move a computer cursor? Were you fuming "a mouse is a small furry rodent!!!!".

good example, did we invent a new word to for real mice to distinguish from the computer mouse?

LLMMLL

Mic 1972 wrote: »

good example, did we invent a new word to for real mice to distinguish from the computer mouse?

A computer mouse isn't real? My cursor must be moving by magic.....

suicide_circus

Gruffalux wrote: »

Are seahorses horses?

If it says its a horse, then its a horse

Frankie Machine

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your example of Fatima Whitbread who I had never seen before does nothing to help your point. She could be trans for all I know, I genuinely could not make an instant determination about her.

I didnt say anyone could make an instant determination about her or anyone else, and I didn't bring her up for that reason.

On the one hand you seem to be saying we can make instant determinations

I said no such thing, and in fact said quite the opposite...

'I am not saying that it's based on observation, and certainly not finally.'

You could form an instant impression of one person that makes you pause and wonder whether they are trans. You could form an instant impression of a different person and be in no doubt that they are trans.

but on the other hand you also seem to be saying we need to know FW has given birth to.make these determinations.

Once again, that is not what I said, and once again I said something quite different to that, which was that

'...all doubt would be removed...'

So, not a necessary condition of proof, but certainly a sufficient one, given that only women can get pregnant and have babies.

So, not Skye then.

BTW I hate that we are debating women's appearances but this is what people who are supposedly.concerned with women's rights are consistently bringing up. I personally have no issues with how stereotypically feminine cis women or trans women appear.to be.

Agree that judging by appearances is unpleasant.

Still, people who represent as transwoman put themselves in precisely that position, simply because they are challenging perceptions.

It's not realistic to expect people not to judge, faced with that challenge.

And that's apart from the regrettable extent to which women are judged by appearances anyway.

Frankie Machine

Frankie Machine wrote: »

I didnt say anyone could make an instant determination about her or anyone else, and I didn't bring her up for that reason.



I said no such thing, and in fact said quite the opposite...

'I am not saying that it's based on observation, and certainly not finally.'

You could form an instant impression of one person that makes you pause and wonder whether they are trans. You could form an instant impression of a different person and be in no doubt that they are trans.



Once again, that is not what I said, and once again I said something quite different to that, which was that

'...all doubt would be removed...'

So, not a necessary condition of proof, but certainly a sufficient one, given that only women can get pregnant and have babies.

So, not Skye then.



Agree that judging by appearances is unpleasant.

Still, people who represent as transwoman put themselves in precisely that position, simply because they are challenging perceptions.

It's not realistic to expect people not to judge, faced with that challenge.

And that's apart from the regrettable extent to which women are judged by appearances anyway.

To which I would add - anyone who says they need the same amount of time to decide that Jessica Yaniv is trans, as they need to decide that Munroe Bergdorf is trans...

is lying.

Like, come on.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

If it says its a horse, then its a horse

I have a debilitating phobia of horses, but seahorses are alright, bit unusual though -

Seahorses are members of the pipefish family. In addition to their iconic appearance, seahorses possess many interesting attributes. Among them are specialized structures in their skin cells, called chromatophores, which allow the mostly sessile seahorses to change color to mimic their surroundings. Well camouflaged as they cling to stalks of seagrass in their shallow habitats, seahorses can be hard to see.

Their truly remarkable biological claim to fame, however, is that male seahorses and sea dragons get pregnant and bear young—a unique adaptation in the animal kingdom.


It’s a parallel that was the inspiration behind this film -

https://seahorsefilm.com

LLMMLL

Frankie Machine wrote: »

I didnt say anyone could make an instant determination about her or anyone else, and I didn't bring her up for that reason.



I said no such thing, and in fact said quite the opposite...

'I am not saying that it's based on observation, and certainly not finally.'

You could form an instant impression of one person that makes you pause and wonder whether they are trans. You could form an instant impression of a different person and be in no doubt that they are trans.



Once again, that is not what I said, and once again I said something quite different to that, which was that

'...all doubt would be removed...'

So, not a necessary condition of proof, but certainly a sufficient one, given that only women can get pregnant and have babies.

So, not Skye then.



Agree that judging by appearances is unpleasant.

Still, people who represent as transwoman put themselves in precisely that position, simply because they are challenging perceptions.

It's not realistic to expect people not to judge, faced with that challenge.

And that's apart from the regrettable extent to which women are judged by appearances anyway.

Then we get back to the original point. A photo in which a woman appears with stereotypically masculine features has nothing to do with whether they are female or not. Yes it's possible a trans woman will appear in a photo with masculine features......it's also possible a cis woman will......it's also possible a trans woman will appear with stereotypically feminije features.......and it's also possible a cis woman will.......

Frankie Machine

LLMMLL wrote: »

Then we get back to the original point. A photo in which a woman appears with stereotypically masculine features has nothing to do with whether they are female or not. Yes it's possible a trans woman will appear in a photo with masculine features......it's also possible a cis woman will......it's also possible a trans woman will appear with stereotypically feminije features.......and it's also possible a cis woman will.......

Ah, but a photo of a transwoman with very feminine features...

... is still not a photo of a woman.

And that has everything to do with the fact that no matter how they look, they are not female, they are not a woman.

LLMMLL

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Ah, but a photo of a transwoman with very feminine features...

... is still not a photo of a woman.

And that has everything to do with the fact that no matter how they look, they are not female, they are not a woman.

Obviously we disagree on that but that was.never the point . How they look in the photo makes no difference. That's what I've been saying all along.