Sorry about that wrote: » Snide, unnecessary reference there to Arlene Foster's appearance. The perks of online anonymity.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Again, both usages have scientific underpinnings. 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 female person : a woman or a girl' or 'an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs'https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female
LLMMLL wrote: » Again, that is not how the vast majority of people use those words. Most people are not aware of the gametes and ova.
Ok, but how does one give examples of something unless they know what that thing is already? If someone gave me as an example of a women would that conceptualisation be correct?
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Ofcourse they are, don't be ridiculous. You are saying men aren't aware of sperm and women aren't aware they have eggs. Totally ludicrous. Clearly you fancy the average person as a complete retard. And btw, ova are gametes. There are only 2 types. Again, I ask:
LLMMLL wrote: » You have to be aware of sperm and eggs to use the terms man and woman? Do you think women always knew they had eggs? For example did Ancient Greek women know they had eggs? Do little children know their mothers have eggs? Are those that do not know this incapable.ofnusing the word "woman"?
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?
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Answer my question before I answer yours. In true LLMMLL style you ignore the questions you are asked and pose your own:
LLMMLL wrote: » I don't have access to individuals conceptualisations of women or have any information about you so the truth is I have no idea if you would fit someones conceptualisations or not. Now would you like to answer mine?
Ok, but how does one give examples of something unless they know what they thing is already?
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Answer my question before I answer yours. In true LLMMLL style you ignore the questions you are asked and pose your own: If someone gave me as an example of a women would that conceptualisation be correct?
If someone gave me as an example of a women would that conceptualisation be correct?
Quantum Erasure wrote: » let me guess: she doesn't know, she hasn't met you
One eyed Jack wrote: » How does one give an example of something if they don’t know it is already? They know what it is already, they just may not refer to it the same way you do is all. They use demonstrations (have you never played charades?) and many different means of communicating their ideas as possible until they’re sure that you understand what they mean. Teachers for example explain concepts to students all the time who would previously have known their penis by many different names, “private parts” being just one of the more popular euphemisms. Plenty of people will understand what a child means when they refer to their private parts, and they might never use the word penis or be familiar with science or any of the rest of it. Science is just another tool, same as Law is just another tool. In society, Law takes precedence over science.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » You didn't answer the first part:
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Fantastic. So going forward when some asks LLMMLL and yourself what a woman is you can play a game of charades. I truly didn't think this could descend it even yet more farce but there you are. I'm off to bed.
Quantum Erasure wrote: » is there a conceptualisation that 'people who menstruate' would fit under, but 'people with a penis' wouldn't, I wonder
One eyed Jack wrote: » If you give the vast majority of people that definition in the first place, then it stands to reason that they would give you that description back when you ask them the question. You’re not even giving them multiple choices? However if you ask most people what is a woman, I don’t know that the vast majority of people actually would answer “adult human female”, you’re likely to get a tonne of different answers because everyone has their own ideas as to how they define woman or women or what constitutes woman or women.
KiKi III wrote: » This is something you and LLMMLL keep saying but in my 32 years on this planet I have not found that “everyone has their own ideas as to how they define woman”. In fact, outside of boards and a few threads I’ve read on Twitter, I’ve never encountered any confusion on it.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Says the anonymous poster.
Sittingpretty wrote: » informative reply, thank you.
Sir Oxman wrote: » It was an informative view about a small active org in Ireland alas until the slur on an LGB organisation with the source as 'Pink News' That well known bastion of truthful journalism - it really is not. It has one agenda (critical gender-->queer theory) and that includes promoting the inclusion of same sex attraction as being 'transphobic'.
Sorry about that wrote: » I don't use my anonymity to (bravely) insult people.
Sorry about that wrote: » You only need to look at the photographs of the NHS staff who've sadly died from coronavirus, to see the risk to people who are overweight. However, it's now taboo to name it; smokers are fair game (rightly so), but point out that obesity is a risk factor in an equally long list of diseases; it's body-shaming. It's bonkers. Instead of shouting stop, we now have fat mannequins in boutique windows, while the scrawny heroin-chic models of the '90's caused uproar. The big-bottom line is money, and fashion doesn't care what size you are, as long as the wheels keep turning (€€€€), so eat up everyone, big is beautiful!
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Why on earth would there be given the sheer level of hostility here.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Yes, I’m amused at anyone posting a link from Pink News as a credible source. It’s a laughing stock of a publication.
Stark wrote: » How so? By "laughing stock of a publication", I presume you mean one that doesn't align with your conservative worldview.
Deleted User wrote: » But thank God we have you Joey. You will always stick up for anyone as long as they believe in your narrative. A very unbiased mod who has no problem promoting or condoning the use of the word terf.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » No. I didnt ignore that. I am observing the differences here and that in Ireland the number of terfs/people who consider themselves gender critical is really tiny and miniscule when compared to the UK. Theres a very big cultural difference.