CtevenSrowder wrote: » It's not asking for a definition. A concept is some kind of idea as to what something is. You can absolutely put that into words. If you can't even begin to it sounds like you haven't any concept in the first place. Again, the reason you won't is because you know you will have to resort to some kind of stereotype as talking biology is out of the question
CtevenSrowder wrote: » haha it gets better!!:D:D What is a trans-female?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Cheffing is an awful job. I gave it up over 20 years ago and went back to college.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » The word wifmann has evolved into woman. It has always meant the same thing is the point.
LLMMLL wrote: » I did put it into words. And those words were not a definition. And I haven't resorted to stereotypes so you really should drop that.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Yes I understand that’s your point, but that’s not what I asked. You sidestepped what I actually asked instead of offering an answer. I’ll try once more and if you don’t want to offer an answer I’ll leave it at that because frankly the table definitions stuff has me wore out :pac:
One eyed Jack wrote: » If someone uses the word wifmann for example, will you immediately understand what they mean?
CtevenSrowder wrote: » You didn't put into words. I asked for your conceptualisation of either a trans-women or a non trans woman. You have not given any indication as to what either of those conceptualisations are. And I am saying you won't as you will have toresort to stereotypes. Not that you have already.
LLMMLL wrote: » The same as a trans woman
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: » Trans-women are male. Again, if you say that trans-women are female you are denying that they even exist, as the whole point of being trans is that you are born the opposite sex that you want to be. So if someone is born male who wants to be female, is actually female, then they are not trans.
LLMMLL wrote: » I didn't say a male could be female. I said trans females are female.
LLMMLL wrote: » A conceptualisation can be given by giving examples. Basically the reverse of how you originally learned the concept. You're just dissatisfied that I won't do what I said all along I wouldn't do: provide an exclusive definition.
LLMMLL wrote: » I mean you can keep trying to get me to provide an exclusive definition of women but it's not going to happen.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Well I will now yes But I won't be disingenuous. No I wouldn't, but noone uses that word anymore. It evolved into woman.
LLMMLL wrote: » Nope you're assuming I use the same definition of female as you do. I don't. Female is just the adjectival form of woman to me.
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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Yes, that’s what I was driving at and fair play for not dancing around it and all the rest of it - someone uses a word you aren’t familiar with, naturally there’s bound to be some initial confusion, but once you understand what they mean it’s easier to know you’re clearly not talking about the same thing and you can tell them “I prefer my women without a side of ladydick if it’s all the same to you thanks!”, well, you get the idea anyway, hopefully!
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Ok, but how does one give examples of something unless they know what they thing is already? If someone gave me as an example of a women would that conceptualisation be correct? You won't provide any definition whatsoever. I never specified that the definition had to be exclusive. You just made that up. It was you who introduced the concept of 'exclusive' definitions in the first place. So, can you provide any definition? It doesn't have to be an exclusive one specifically.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » And I've given you the adjectival form of the word as it relates to humans (who are animals), unless you don't think that trans people are human. Do you? Female:
LLMMLL wrote: » I'm perfectly fine with the definiton that you consider the scientific definition as long as it's not pretended to be a definition that encompasses all women and is not used as a means to curb other women's rights. So if you feel happy with that definition yourself and you feel it helps you communicate On matters where you are not trying to curb other women's rights then that's perfectly fine. However if you then go on to say that certain women cannot be women because they don't fit your definition then it's an issue. And if you go on to use that definition to curb their rights then that's a major issue.
Ok, but how does one give examples of something unless they know what they thing is already? If someone gave me as an example of a women would that conceptualisation be correct?
LLMMLL wrote: » Your definition of female is actually not scientific. On the sense that observations about it's patterns of usage can be made and your explanation does not fit the pattern of usage. Basically your theory fails to match observations. Take for example: This woman is a female engineer This female is a woman engineer Most English speakers will find one of these sentences to be grammatical English and the other to be odd. If the definition of female is purely scientific and completely matches the definition you have given it should be able to explain the above pattern. But it doesn't. The explanation of the above pattern is that female is not a purey scientific term but is simply the adjectival form of woman.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » And as ususal you ignore the question posed. It's not just the scientific definition it is the definition. And it does encompass all women, excluding transwomen because they are not female. That is why they are trans, they wish they were. I'll ask again though:
LLMMLL wrote: » It's not the definition. It's YOUR definition.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Or you could keep women to mean what it does, and have the term trans-women like we already do to avoid this confusion in the first place. This is why specific definitions are important, and having words mean all sorts of things to different people is not quite a good idea.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Female can be used as both an adjective and a noun. Both uses have scientific underpinnings.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » No it is the definition. I can whip out the dictionaries again if you want.
LLMMLL wrote: » So someone who says "that person is a female engineer" has something different in mind to someone who says "that person is an engineer who is a woman"? In the first sentence they are thinking of the scientific definition and in the second they are thinking of the non-scientific definition?
