Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Deleted User wrote: »

Define sexual.

"My conceptualisation of no is that it includes both a negative and a positive".

LLMMLL wrote: »

You are perfectly free to believe that a person with a penis should not be in a women's changing rooms. I disagree and can argue that point separately.

What's your definition of a penis? Or conceptualisation if you must.

LLMMLL wrote: »

No it was not an exclusive definition as for each element of the definition I have shown objects commonly called tables that did not fit the definition. If the definitions given were exclusive then those objects would not be tables.

It is true that the "gamete" definition you have exclusively defines a category.

What 'category' is that?

LLMMLL wrote: »

But that category is not what women are. It does not include trans women who are women. So you have not given an exclusive definition of women.

Hold on what? I haven't given an exclusive definition because it excludes? That makes no sense at all. Again, trans-women aren't women. You can't define what a women is because you know full well that biological males can't be women. You can't even adequately describe your 'conceptualisation' of women

LLMMLL wrote: »

You have given an exclusive definition of a category of idividuals who IN YOUR OPINION are women.

It is not 'MY OPINION'. I have sourced my definitions. They are not opinions. You seem to not understand that.

Here's oxford learners dictionaries definition of woman:

an adult female human

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/woman?q=woman

Here's dictionary.com:

an adult female person.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/woman

Here's miriam-webster:

an adult female person

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've answered the question about my conceptualization of women multiple times. It includes cis women and trans women. Asking me to define my conceptualization is just asking me to define women exclusively and my answer to that (which I have given multiple times) is I won't do that as I do not believe one exists.

Yes, you don't believe one exists. But I have just shown you above that one does. It doesn't include trans-women because they are not woman. You are simply in denial. It's akin to a flat Earther saying that pictures of the globular World don't exist. But, unfortunately for them, they do.

What do you mean by conceptualisation exactly anyway? Your answer still tells us nothing as to what a woman is, or what a female is. We are not mind readers.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you mean "no means no" in sexual situations?

As for hate speech these things have legal definitions. A legal definition can be used in legal contexts. Take a look at any new piece of legislation. It's full of definitions. These definitions are only relevant for the purpose of law and not relevant to everyday speech or how people think.

Define sexual.

LLMMLL wrote: »

You are perfectly free to believe that a person with a penis should not be in a women's changing rooms. I disagree and can argue that point separately.

Don't bother mate.

You probably haven't got an exclusive definition for penis so it's pointless.

The very fact that my child knows the difference between a boy and a girl yet you don't is bizarre to me but **** it, we are going around in circles. Best of luck to you

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As far as I can see, it's now seemingly an effort to include transgender women to be accepted as a woman, although woman means nothing as it's open to interpretation.

Fine. I'll concede. A transwoman is a woman. If that's the hill you want to die on then cool. Take that word.

I would counter by saying that anyone with a penis, regardless of whether they think they should have a vagina, shouldn't be allowed the same rights and securities as those that are exclusive to those who were born with them.

Let's not call them men and women as that is somehow phobic somehow. Natural Penis people and natural vagina people.

As you said, words are open to interpretation. Biology however tends to be more cut and dry.

Tell an alcoholic he should identify as not one.

Tell someone with aids to identify as not having it

Tell a midget he is a giant.

To quote the intellectual heavyweight Ronan Keating, it's only words.

You are perfectly free to believe that a person with a penis should not be in a women's changing rooms. I disagree and can argue that point separately.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

There was. But regardless it is irrelevant anyway. An exclusive definition of both women and female was given. They are exclusively defined. In fact this is the problem you have. They are exclusively defined words, and they don't include trans-women. And the reason they don't is because trans-women aren't women. Trans-women are biologically male. (This is why they are trans, they want/wish to be female). Also, not that it's relevant, just because one thing may not be exclusively defined (we're talking about your absurd standard here) doesn't mean that nothing can be. Female and Women can both be exclusively defined.

And since you did the usual and didn't answer my question (whats new!), I'll ask again:

What is your conceptualisation of cis-women?

No it was not an exclusive definition as for each element of the definition I have shown objects commonly called tables that did not fit the definition. If the definitions given were exclusive then those objects would not be tables.

It is true that the "gamete" definition you have exclusively defines a category. But that category is not what women are. It does not include trans women who are women. So you have not given an exclusive definition of women. You have given an exclusive definition of a category of idividuals who IN YOUR OPINION are women.

I've answered the question about my conceptualization of women multiple times. It includes cis women and trans women. Asking me to define my conceptualization is just asking me to define women exclusively and my answer to that (which I have given multiple times) is I won't do that as I do not believe one exists.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What words have an exclusive definition?

Would you be willing to suggest then that sometimes no doesn't mean no?

Or that hate speech can't exist as no word can be defined exclusively?

Do you mean "no means no" in sexual situations?

As for hate speech these things have legal definitions. A legal definition can be used in legal contexts. Take a look at any new piece of legislation. It's full of definitions. These definitions are only relevant for the purpose of law and not relevant to everyday speech or how people think.

As far as I can see, it's now seemingly an effort to include transgender women to be accepted as a woman, although woman means nothing as it's open to interpretation.

Fine. I'll concede. A transwoman is a woman. If that's the hill you want to die on then cool. Take that word.

I would counter by saying that anyone with a penis, regardless of whether they think they should have a vagina, shouldn't be allowed the same rights and securities as those that are exclusive to those who were born with them.

Let's not call them men and women as that is somehow phobic somehow. Natural Penis people and natural vagina people.

As you said, words are open to interpretation. Biology however tends to be more cut and dry.

Tell an alcoholic he should identify as not one.

Tell someone with aids to identify as not having it

Tell a midget he is a giant.

To quote the intellectual heavyweight Ronan Keating, it's only words.

LLMMLL wrote: »

An exclusive definiton of table hasn't been given. If you are referring to FVPs definition she already had to give up on her definition that table's had legs. She stopped responding when she was presented with a table that didn't have a flat surface. And it wouldn't have taken long for me to have taken down her 3rd criteria "designed for eating, studying or working".

There was. But regardless it is irrelevant anyway. An exclusive definition of both women and female was given. They are exclusively defined. In fact this is the problem you have. They are exclusively defined words, and they don't include trans-women. And the reason they don't is because trans-women aren't women. Trans-women are biologically male. (This is why they are trans, they want/wish to be female). Also, not that it's relevant, just because one thing may not be exclusively defined (we're talking about your absurd standard here) doesn't mean that nothing can be. Female and Women can both be exclusively defined.

And since you did the usual and didn't answer my question (whats new!), I'll ask again:

What is your conceptualisation of cis-women?

LLMMLL wrote: »

An exclusive definiton of table hasn't been given. If you are referring to FVPs definition she already had to give up on her definition that table's had legs. She stopped responding when she was presented with a table that didn't have a flat surface. And it wouldn't have taken long for me to have taken down her 3rd criteria "designed for eating, studying or working".

What words have an exclusive definition?

Would you be willing to suggest then that sometimes no doesn't mean no?

Or that hate speech can't exist as no word can be defined exclusively?

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

An exclusive definiton of table hasn't been given. If you are referring to FVPs definition she already had to give up on her definition that table's had legs. She stopped responding when she was presented with a table that didn't have a flat surface. And it wouldn't have taken long for me to have taken down her 3rd criteria "designed for eating, studying or working".

FVP was a she? I’d her pegged for a fella tbh

Closed her account since anyway, interesting sort, hopefully everything is all good and they’ll be back again.

Sittingpretty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then quote someone who did say those things. If people did so on this thread you wouldn't have had any difficulty in finding one.
Or don't quote anyone at all.

You quoted me which is a way of responding to something I said.

Yes Mom.

Jees, so tetchy

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

An exclusive definition of a table has been given. And we can exclusively define both women and female regardless. I've just done it above.

And the point of definitions is to be exclusive. What is your conceptualisation of cis-women?

An exclusive definiton of table hasn't been given. If you are referring to FVPs definition she already had to give up on her definition that table's had legs. She stopped responding when she was presented with a table that didn't have a flat surface. And it wouldn't have taken long for me to have taken down her 3rd criteria "designed for eating, studying or working".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUToJggSVAs

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's not the whole point of definitions at all. Otherwise you would be able to exclusively define a table. But nobody has been able to and "it's an inanimate object" doesn't make a difference. In fact it should be easier to give an exclusive definition of a simple inaninatebobject Than a complex biological one.

My conceptualization if a woman includes both trans and cis women. But if you are looking for me to give an exclusive definition of this conceptualisation then again I have to repeat myself: none can be given.

An exclusive definition of a table has been given. And we can exclusively define both women and female regardless. I've just done it above.

And the point of definitions is to be exclusive. What is your conceptualisation of cis-women?

Quantum Erasure

LLMMLL wrote: »

My conceptualization if a woman includes both trans and cis women. But if you are looking for me to give an exclusive definition of this conceptualisation then again I have to repeat myself: none can be given.

does your conceptualization include cis males?

why / why not?

One eyed Jack

Danzy wrote: »

U17 boys from here would be doing Olympic gold times in the women's 100m.

Jedward were the first athletes that spring to mind :pac:

One eyed Jack

BloodBath wrote: »

Except no matter how hard they train they can't win because a strong trans woman has a massive biological advantage that far exceeds normal biological advantages that some women would have over others.

You might as well ask them to train harder to beat men. It's not going to happen. I'm not saying that to denigrate women or trans women either. It's just biology. An average male athlete is going to be better than most of the best female athletes in most physical sports but that's just stating the obvious.

I don't know what the fair solution for all parties is. I understand trans women wanting to be just seen as women and included in female spaces but there's a couple of areas where it's problematic. I guess it will sort itself out over time as long as respectful discussion/debate is not shut down which to be fair you haven't done. Plenty in the trans community have tried to shut these discussions down though.

This debate will surely rise if there are many trans women competing in the Olympics next year especially if they win and break records.

There are never going to be as many people who are transgender competing in sports as those people who aren’t transgender. Even without people who are transgender competing, losers always claimed the winners were doping or cheating or doing something, anything that they could think of to smear the winner.

I fully expect that if someone who is transgender does win anything (and I’m not referring to McKinnon winning some cycling race for geriatrics that there was no big money involved in), that there will be all sorts of accusations and abuse levelled at them. In that regard at least they will be treated no differently than any other sports personality with people looking for all sorts of reasons to discredit their achievements.

There is ongoing talks of permitting people who are transgender to compete in the Olympics and all sorts of new events being introduced in various sports to allow for fairer competition for all participants and all the rest of it, so it’s not as though anyone is going to be excluded, only if they actually want to exclude themselves or they simply don’t qualify for a place in competition. That’s the way it’s always been.

The thing is now too though that many sporting organisations are looking at future developments in society and in sports and seeing that children who are transgender also need to be accommodated and encouraged into sports, these organisations want to encourage children who are transgender to participate in sports, and that’s going to mean all sorts of changes and development in all sports. We may well see a time when sports are mixed sex and participants are classed on all sorts of various factors like their ability and so on. It may well be the case that they might have to allow for different testing criteria for synthetic performance enhancers and so on.

I don’t imagine it will be an easy task, quite likely to be a bit of a head melt in any case, but given the enormous sums of money in terms of sponsorship and development of the sports and developments in technology and society, I reckon they will be able to devise competitions which are fair to all participants regardless of their sex or gender or any of the rest of it.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But one can be given. 'Adult human human'. You reject this because of your World view, but then fail to give your own. The whole point of definitions are that they are exclusive.

What is your 'conceptualisation' of a women then?

That's not the whole point of definitions at all. Otherwise you would be able to exclusively define a table. But nobody has been able to and "it's an inanimate object" doesn't make a difference. In fact it should be easier to give an exclusive definition of a simple inaninatebobject Than a complex biological one.

My conceptualization if a woman includes both trans and cis women. But if you are looking for me to give an exclusive definition of this conceptualisation then again I have to repeat myself: none can be given.

Danzy

BloodBath wrote: »

Except no matter how hard they train they can't win because a strong trans woman has a massive biological advantage that far exceeds normal biological advantages that some women would have over others.

You might as well ask them to train harder to beat men. It's not going to happen. I'm not saying that to denigrate women or trans women either. It's just biology. An average male athlete is going to be better than most of the best female athletes in most physical sports but that's just stating the obvious.

I don't know what the fair solution for all parties is. I understand trans women wanting to be just seen as women and included in female spaces but there's a couple of areas where it's problematic. I guess it will sort itself out over time as long as respectful discussion/debate is not shut down which to be fair you haven't done. Plenty in the trans community have tried to shut these discussions down though.

This debate will surely rise if there are many trans women competing in the Olympics next year especially if they win and/or break records.

U17 boys from here would be doing Olympic gold times in the women's 100m.

BloodBath

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’ll find I’ve never used that term, because it’s ridiculous.

Secondly I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect anyone to train harder if they want to win in any competition. It would be unreasonable for anyone to argue that other competitors should be excluded because they aren’t able to beat them.

Of course training helps? I’d say the same of anyone who wanted to participate in anything - train harder and you’ll get better at it and might actually be in with a chance of winning at competitive level. Whether it’s the Olympics or the Paralympics or any other competition.

Except no matter how hard they train they can't win because a strong trans woman has a massive biological advantage that far exceeds normal biological advantages that some women would have over others.

You might as well ask them to train harder to beat men. It's not going to happen. I'm not saying that to denigrate women or trans women either. It's just biology. An average male athlete is going to be better than most of the best female athletes in most physical sports but that's just stating the obvious.

I don't know what the fair solution for all parties is. I understand trans women wanting to be just seen as women and included in female spaces but there's a couple of areas where it's problematic. I guess it will sort itself out over time as long as respectful discussion/debate is not shut down which to be fair you haven't done. Plenty in the trans community have tried to shut these discussions down though.

This debate will surely rise if there are many trans women competing in the Olympics next year especially if they win and break records.

LLMMLL wrote: »

The underpinnings are not scientific. The underpinnings are the same as all words. They are how people commonly understand them in their particular culture.

Women - adult human female.

Female (adjective) :

'of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes'.

Female (noun) :

'a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.'

Both are based of how things simply are, whether you like it or not. And regardless. That is how people view both words in out culture. They do not see someone with broad shoulders, a beard and bulge in the midriff and think' woman'. They think man. So even that argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Can we have your 'conceptualisation' of a women please.

LLMMLL wrote: »

The underpinnings are not scientific. The underpinnings are the same as all words. They are how people commonly understand them in their particular culture.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not claiming to give exclusive definitions and to be able to decide who is not a woman and who is not straight.

My conceptualizations of man/woman straight/gay/bi black/white/asian are inclusive and allow that not everybody fits a clear definition.

There is no point asking me to provide an exclusive definiton when my whole argument is that one cannot be given.

But one can be given. 'Adult human human'. You reject this because of your World view, but then fail to give your own. The whole point of definitions are that they are exclusive.

What is your 'conceptualisation' of a women then?

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not claiming to give exclusive definitions and to be able to decide who is not a woman and who is not straight.

My conceptualizations of man/woman straight/gay/bi black/white/asian are inclusive and allow that not everybody fits a clear definition.

There is no point asking me to provide an exclusive definiton when my whole argument is that one cannot be given.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Aa I've said to you before, a table is an inaminate object.

We can and do have definitions of female and woman. Both words having scientific under-pinnings.

The underpinnings are not scientific. The underpinnings are the same as all words. They are how people commonly understand them in their particular culture.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You very fond of asking questions yet never answering them.

Can yiu define what a cis-male is, you were asked earlier but never did.

Can you give definitions for woman and female too whilst your at it please?

I'm not claiming to give exclusive definitions and to be able to decide who is not a woman and who is not straight.

My conceptualizations of man/woman straight/gay/bi black/white/asian are inclusive and allow that not everybody fits a clear definition.

There is no point asking me to provide an exclusive definiton when my whole argument is that one cannot be given.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I notice you never replied to my last criticism of your table definition. You basically couldn't define it exclusively.

You are actually right. A table is just a table. We learn the concept by seeing examples.and we attach a name to the concept. If anyone asks for a definition we try and sum up the common characteristics but of course we can't fully capture the concept because non-exclusive definiton can fully capture the concept.

Aa I've said to you before, a table is an inaminate object.

We can and do have definitions of female and woman. Both words having scientific under-pinnings.