CtevenSrowder wrote: » I don't even understand why this pretence of trans-woman are woman is trotted out. You can have self-id without this blatant mis-truth.
Quantum Erasure wrote: » was just reading yesterday that cucumbers are fruit, and berries...
LLMMLL wrote: » And your example "blue" is perfect. Try to get any two people to draw exact lines as to what is blue and what is not blue. And if they don't exactly match (which they definitely won't) ask them do they agree that the sky is blue. Ask them do they understand what blue is.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Do all lesbians play sports? Do all lesbians shave their armpits? Are all lesbians left-wing? Do lesbians eat meat?? Do all lesbians want to be Megan Rapinoe? Do all lesbians want to have sex with Megan Rapinoe? Does Megan Rapinoe want to have sex with Megan Rapinoe? These and other questions where someone will answer for all lesbians everywhere in the world because they are all the same not coming to an AMA on a site near you soon.
Quantum Erasure wrote: » no-one said it's the main thing... so can I take it you're a lesbian, if you don't mind me asking? would you mind touching a female penis, if your potential partner asked?
LLMMLL wrote: » Your definition (well I would say your understanding) of exclusive is fine. But it doesn't include people who IN YOUR OPINION are male. Nobody has to share your opinion. I certainly don't. Your definition does misses out on an entire group of women so is not an exclusive definitoon of women. Again, we're back to the gobbldeygook of it not being exclusive because it doesn't include. That makes no sense. And it does not follow that decisions have to be made about what things are. I use tables all the time without having to decide on an exclusive definition of tables.
KiKi III wrote: » Most people have a shared understanding of what the words they are using to communicate mean. If I say “Pass the blue plate” I don’t need to define “blue” or “plate” because the person I’m speaking to knows what that means. It’s literally the function of learning a language.
Stark wrote: » This is starting to remind me of debates over whether tomato is a fruit or a vegetable or whether a peanut is a nut or what fruits are berries (you're very very likely to get the berries one wrong).
Sittingpretty wrote: » Also from my wealth of utterly useless information, did you know cashew nuts are not actually nuts at all.
Bannasidhe wrote: » ... As for other lesbians I refer you to my post above.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Again, we're back to the gobbldeygook of it not being exclusive because it doesn't include. That makes no sense. It 'misses' them out because they aren't women. You are starting from the assumption that they are women without even knowing what the word means. You are engaging in circular logic. You can't even give a definition to replace the current one. You cannot spell out for us what your conceptualisations of trans-woman and non-trans woman are. If we were to all live in your world there would be no words as nothing would have meaning. One persons 'conceptualisation' could be completely different to anothers. And it gets worse when one refuses to announce what their conceptualisation is. 'And it doesn't follow that decisions have to be made about what things are'. Ofcourse it does. For the reason above. This is all because deep down you know fully well that trans-woman aren't woman. And any go at trying to conceptualise or define what a woman is cannot use biology. So all your left with is stereotypes which leads you down a road that you don't want to go down.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Nor are monkey nuts, they’re legumes. (I’m available for useless trivia rounds in table quizzes )
Stark wrote: » There's the biological definitions aspect of things with X and Y chromosomes and gametes and the like and then there's the societal definition. Whether or not society accepts you as who you say you are rather than requiring strict adherence to definitions like producing ova or having the correct chromosomes and the like. The latter is subject to change as society evolves/progresses.
Stark wrote: » No-one's arguing that someone can change their chromosomes/produce different gametes. They are arguing that society has the choice over whether to accept someone's identity for what they say it is or not.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I know this one! A tomato is a fruiting vegetable. A peanut is a vegetable or legume. Bananas are berries but strawberries aren't.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » What we can gather from this then is whilst the spelling may have changed, the meaning of the word has not. wifmann,wimmann, wumman, woman... all meant as 'female human', or put another way, excluding those that are male. I rest my case.
LLMMLL wrote: » Firstly I've never used stereotypes to define women. I've already announced my conceptualisation. It's cis women and trans women. I won't however provide an exclusive definiton because my whole argument is thaT exclusive definitions of women don't exist. And I'm not saying your definition is not exclusive because it doesn't include. I'm saying your definition OF WOMEN is not exclusive because it does not include a particular category OF WOMEN. the definition you provided is exclusive. It's just not an exclusive definiton of women.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » But ultimately there has to be a definition. Otherwise the word can mean all sorts to all sorts of people, and as such is rendered useless. Surely as a gay man you understand the dangers of this. Yes society is progressive now, but just because we progress doesn't mean we can't regress to the days of a man who likes traditionally womanly things being considered a man not so much. Look at Iran, were gay men are coerced into transitioning because they are not considered 'manly' by society because they gay and effeminate. I am sure most would agree that adult human female is the best one, as it includes everyone who is female. So you can be the girliest of girls type female or the butchist of girls type female yet still be a woman, and noone can say otherwise. LLMMLL has argued that trans-women are female, even though they are male. So that argument has been made.
LLMMLL wrote: » Firstly I've never used stereotypes to define women. I've already announced my conceptualisation. It's cis women and trans women. I won't however provide an exclusive definiton because my whole argument is thaT exclusive definitions of women don't exist.
LLMMLL wrote: » And I'm not saying your definition is not exclusive because it doesn't include. I'm saying your definition OF WOMEN is not exclusive because it does not include a particular category OF WOMEN. the definition you provided is exclusive. It's just not an exclusive definiton of women.
LLMMLL wrote: » I never said someone could change their chrokosomes.
Rodin wrote: » And just because you say it's a green bowl doesn't make it so. Because it has no features of being so. The age of reason really is in the rearview mirror.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Your case doesn’t rest on a whole lot Cteven. But you missed the point in any case - if someone uses the word wifmann for example, will you immediately understand what they mean? I doubt it. In the same way as someone were to use the term gender non-binary to describe themselves, would you be able to tell from that whether they are your understanding of man or woman? You need a lot more information from anyone, and even then their idea of a woman and yours may be very different. They may well describe themselves as a woman and you might be given to thinking “ahh hold on now a minute” based upon your visual perception alone. I know I did the other day when I happened upon Arlene Foster!
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Peanuts are vegetables! Never would've thought that.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I genuinely had to learn this stuff for an exam (city and guilds cheffy one) decades ago. It has only ever been useful for pub quizzes. There was also a whole section on herb garnishes (turned out to be more efficient to memorise what did not have parsley as the official garnish) which has never been any use at all for anything.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » I didn't ask for a definition. I asked for your conceptualisation of either trans or non trans women. Either will suit me. It is an exclusive definition of women. Again, you are starting from the point that trans-women are women before you know the definition of the word.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Well then how can a male be a female?
CtevenSrowder wrote: » haha That sounds awful. I've a friend who trained to be a chef in college. His hours were crazy. He'd do 9 to 9 of lectures/practicals somedays.
LLMMLL wrote: » Yes because the vast majority of our concepts are not based on definitions as I demonstrated in an earlier post about deconstructionism. You clearly don't understand the difference between a conceptualisation and a definition. It's quite long to type out so go back and look at my reply to Gruffalox about deconstructionism and then you will see why asking to out a coneptualization into words is asking for a definition.
LLMMLL wrote: » I didn't say a male could be female. I said trans females are female.
