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.
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.
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.
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.
LLMMLL wrote: » You have given an exclusive definition of a category of idividuals who IN YOUR OPINION are women.
an adult female human
an adult female person.
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.
Deleted User wrote: » Define sexual.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Define sexual.
Gruffalox wrote: » In case anyone wonders where this tedious ahistorical anoral word play comes from where everything in the world apparently has a liminal half existence that eludes concrete definition, because there is no truth, no truth but that truth, then here... "Deconstructionism A term tied very closely to postmodernism, deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all." And if anyone ever wants to hear someone dish the dirt on deconstructionism them Camille Paglia, famous scolar, lesbian and upholder of biological truth and reason against radical trans ideology, is available to watch on videos. She is as difficult to listen to as the snuffling Slavoj Zizek (who I dislike) because of her verbal tics and intellectual impatience, but the brilliant contempt she heaps about the sh1theap that is deconstructionism is worth it for as long as you can take her. Especially her contempt for Foucault, the disturbed, death obsessed man for whom the Marquis de Sade was a hero who did not go far enough.
LLMMLL wrote: » I'm having a fantastic flashback to our lecturer trying to get us to define a hammer and the absolute fury of a bunch of first year physicists screaming "a hammer is a hammer, A HAMMER IS A HAMMER" as he picked apart their definitions. Bright young minds.
Gruffalox wrote: » Camille Paglia
Gruffalox wrote: » Haha we have crawled through that mire. It definitely has very little to do with genitals, I've been told. Its a kind of cerebral indefinite, even sexless, "thing".
CtevenSrowder wrote: » "Heh, huh, hum, m'kay".
Sittingpretty wrote: » Out of interest are there any trans people on this thread? Totally get if people would rather not sayowing to their privacy btw.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Why on earth would there be given the sheer level of hostility here.
Bannasidhe wrote: » You were never told that so stop with the hyperbole. You were told that not everyone is as fixated on genitals as you seem to be and that celibate long term relations, incl marriage, can and do happen. No one said, implied, intimated, suggested, posited, inferred, that this was the norm, majority, usual - it was merely said that sex is not everything - there are other factors in adult human attraction. Ask Yeats - his attraction to Maude Gonne is considered one of the Great Irish Romances but never a sniff of sex did he get as Gonne wasn't interested regardless of Yeats possessing the 'correct' genitals.
Gruffalox wrote: » I always thought Yeats rather silly about Maud Gonne. He did have sex with her in Paris in middle age. Apparently it was not up to much. She rejected again his marriage proposal and he responded by promptly asking her daughter Iseult to marry him. She said no. I love his poetry but what a big wally.
Sittingpretty wrote: » If you consider the debate in this thread to be hostile then you’ve led a sheltered debating life thus far
Hand in Your Pants wrote: » Deconstruction as a tool to understand and create meaning around texts and ideas is an eminently useful discipline for Arts students. Same for postmodernism. Whether some people have ideological issues with it is beside the point. You can't just remove important parts from the history of ideas that don't float your boat.
Hand in Your Pants wrote: » Deconstruction as a tool to understand and create meaning around texts and ideas is an eminently useful discipline for Arts students. Same for postmodernism. Whether some people have ideological issues with it is beside the point. You can't just remove important parts from the history of ideas that don't float your boat when preparing a student syllabus.
Bannasidhe wrote: » She turned him down 3 times and Iseult told him to sling his hook too. A wally with a willy tho - which wasn't enough for either Maud or Iseult to be attracted to him.
Gruffalox wrote: » Well who likes wallys?
Bannasidhe wrote: » A debate where someone used the term 'degenerates' and it got thanked is absolutely hostile. Thankfully the mods nuked it. It still sat there for a while tho.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » What 'category' is that?
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
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:https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/woman?q=woman Here's dictionary.com:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/woman Here's miriam-webster: 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: » The category of individuals that fall within the definition.
LLMMLL wrote: » You have given an exclusive definition but not an exclusive definition of women.
LLMMLL wrote: » FVP's definition of table was an exclusive definition. Any object with legs and a flat surface designed for eating etc. Is exclusively defined by that definition. However this exclusive definition of a group of objects does not describe all tables so is therefore not an exclusive definition of table.
LLMMLL wrote: » Dictionary definitions do not exclusively define words. They attempt to describe how they are used. They are not designed for people to use in their political games of exclusion.
LLMMLL wrote: » Linguistics has moved on from the quite silly pre 1950s notion that the role of the linguist is to specify the "rules" of language. Modern linguistics ATTEMPTS to capture and explain common patterns.
LLMMLL wrote: » And it's a complete misunderstanding of my position to equate it with deconstructionism. But I'll get to that in my next post.
Gruffalox wrote: » In case anyone wonders where this tedious ahistorical amoral word play comes from where everything in the world apparently has a liminal half existence that eludes concrete definition, because there is no truth, no truth but that truth, then here... "Deconstructionism A term tied very closely to postmodernism, deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all." And if anyone ever wants to hear someone dish the dirt on deconstructionism them Camille Paglia, famous scholar, lesbian and upholder of biological truth and reason against radical trans ideology, is available to watch on videos. She is as difficult to listen to as the snuffling Slavoj Zizek (who I dislike) because of her verbal tics and intellectual impatience, but the brilliant contempt she heaps about the sh1theap that is deconstructionism is worth it for as long as you can take her. Especially her contempt for Foucault, the disturbed, death obsessed man for whom the Marquis de Sade was a hero who did not go far enough.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
