Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 3:14pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I reject the term. You can use it in a sociology essay, but it's not something I will ever, ever use - not anyone else that I know. It is limited in its application by gender extremists who want to establish the linguistic rules of the conversation.

And to that, I will not yield an inch.

Then your position is a complete contradiction. We can’t reject terms except when you have feelings about the term. We must accept other terms but you get to reject them.

It seems you care little for definitions and more about feelings. At least when it’s your own feelings

As for the suggestion that self-expression is "evidence". My goodness me.

Some people hallucinate and genuinely believe what they have seen. Is that good evidence for their belief?

Some people are born able-bodied but, later in life, believe they were born into a disabled body - and so want to remedy that by turning their belief into a reality (such as amputation, blinding themselves etc.).This is known as transable-ism. Is that good evidence for their belief?

Some people fervently believe in Islamic extremism - that their strong belief is so true that they feel the need to blow up an arena filled with children. Is that good evidence for their belief?

Some people, often girls, believe they have a very fat body when in fact they are on the verge of death due to anorexia. Is that good evidence for their belief?

The wider point is this: that strong belief never equates to strong evidence - and this is true no matter what subject we speak about. To identify with any of the above positions raises precisely the same set of questions.

In courts of law, personal testimony is considered among the weakest forms of evidence - and there's a very good reason for that, too.

Personal testimony is absolutely crucial to law. You may view it as weak evidence but it’s evidence. There is no law court on the planet that discounts personal testimony.

You’re actually proving my point with these examples. Not your own.

Gentlemanne · 26-05-2021 3:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What is your understanding of why people don't use it?

I personally don't use it as it is superfluous.

It's perhaps superflous when in a discussion where gender is irrelevant - but this is literally what the thread is about. When discussing sexual orientation "gay" and "straight" are useful terms. So is this.

My understanding of why people don't use it is because they don't want to legitimise trans people. If you think thats not a charitable take then please read the below, highlight mine

eskimohunt wrote: »

And cis- is entirely superfluous - it adds no value whatsoever other than to somehow balance out the need to justify the use of the word trans-.

EDIT: Ah, another. Ye really seem to want transgender people to hide in the closet.

keano_afc wrote: »

There's no reason to call anyone "cis". Its a meaningless prefix that only exists to validate trangenderism

26-05-2021 3:16pm

Gentlemanne wrote: »

It's perhaps superflous when in a discussion where gender is irrelevant - but this is literally what the thread is about. When discussing sexual orientation "gay" and "straight" are useful terms. So is this.

My understanding of why people don't use it is because they don't want to legitimise trans people. If you think thats not a charitable take then please read the below, highlight mine

What does cis-man add to the meaning of just saying man alone?

We all know what a man is, so what added value does cis- provide?

LLMMLL wrote: »

Personal testimony is absolutely crucial to law. You may view it as weak evidence but it’s evidence. There is no law court on the planet that discounts personal testimony.

You’re actually proving my point with these examples. Not your own.

I never said that personal testimony was not evidence; I explicitly stated it was a weak form of evidence (for example: compared to DNA etc.).

Nice to see you sidelined all my other points.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 3:19pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why?

Cis is a superfluous term. I'm also non handicapped. I also have ten fingers. It would not be inaccurate for you to describe me as such, but I can see why it would be silly and superfluous for you to address me as a man with those prefixes and know the only reason you are doing it is in the pretence that both cis and trans need to be used as man or woman is not enough of a descriptive term and people may get confused.

It is a silly and childish to pretend you are using it for any other reason.

Biology wise

A man is a man and a woman is a woman.

A "cis man" is a man and a "cis woman" is a woman

A trans man is a woman and a trans woman is a man.

That's why trans is used as a prefix.

Cis is only superfluous to those who believe that trans women are not women.

If I couldn’t say cis then I have to say women (for cis women) and trans women (for trans women). This implies I believe that trans women are not women as when discussing both I would have to say women and trans women which implies that trans women are not women.

So it is not superfluous to me though I can see it is superfluous to you.

That’s just explaining my position on why I use it. It actually doesn’t matter. Because your previous position has been that all that matters is precision of definitions.

You say that cis is precise. So do you believe you are a cis man, even though you wouldn’t use the term yourself.

If not then why do you get to discard accurate definitions while insisting others use the exact same definition as you because it is inherently precise and accurate. Is it solely based on your....gasp....feelings?

One eyed Jack · 26-05-2021 3:20pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On the last point, yes - sex exists. However, you cannot switch sex - no matter what the objective standard happens to be. And there are only two sexes.

I never argued that anyone could switch sex? It’s obvious that nobody, not even with the best will in the world, can change sex. The point was that how sex is defined, by humans, is subject to change.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On your former point, gender is a social construct.

In fact, I would argue that gender does not exist. I prefer the original use of gender, which referred to male and female, because people were often shy to use the term 'sex'. Gender filled that role. It has since metamorphosed into something all completely different.

When were people ever too shy to use sex? It was in far more common use than the word gender even became common. Transsexuals are still referred to as such in medical literature for example, and if you want to do the whole “go back 300 years” thing again, Shakespeare, who wrote some of the greatest works of English literature known to man, was no stranger to a colourful turn of phrase or language unbecoming of polite society. Lady Macbeth’s “Unsex me here” monologue is one of my favourites

The only limits to how language is used, are those of your own imagination.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It doesn't matter to me what someone feels re: femininity and masculinity; it does not, and never can, change sex.

It clearly does matter to you on some level how someone feels re: femininity or masculinity. It’s not an issue as long as they agree with your opinion. It becomes an issue when they don’t, and you’re understandably resistant to the idea of how you previously understood sex to be defined, being changed, and your having no control over it because nobody who disagrees with you can be obligated to care what you think as to whether or not the language anyone uses can be used to change how sex is defined. The issue isn’t with material reality, objectively that hasn’t changed. What’s changing is the language people use to describe themselves, and there’s not a whole lot people can do to challenge that, or we’d still be speaking as we did in Shakespeare’s time.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 3:20pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What does cis-man add to the meaning of just saying man alone?

We all know what a man is, so what added value does cis- provide?

I never said that personal testimony was not evidence; I explicitly stated it was a weak form of evidence (for example: compared to DNA etc.).

Nice to see you sidelined all my other points.

Speaking of sidelining. Are you ever going to tell me how children accurately use words without ever hearing the dictionary definition?

As you have stated words have no meaning without definitions.

keano_afc · 26-05-2021 3:22pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Cis is only superfluous to those who believe that trans women are not women.

If I couldn’t say cis then I have to say women (for cis women) and trans women (for trans women). This implies I believe that trans women are not women as when discussing both I would have to say women and trans women which implies that trans women are not women.

So it is not superfluous to me though I can see it is superfluous to you.

That’s just explaining my position on why I use it. It actually doesn’t matter. Because your previous position has been that all that matters is precision of definitions.

You say that cis is precise. So do you believe you are a cis man, even though you wouldn’t use the term yourself.

If not then why do you get to discard accurate definitions while insisting others use the exact same definition as you because it is inherently precise and accurate. Is it solely based on your....gasp....feelings?

But you dont believe transwomen are women. You dont have a definition of the word "woman", so you cant classify trans identified males as women when you dont believe the word has any meaning.

26-05-2021 3:22pm

Also non-binary makes no sense.

You can claim you do not identify with masculinity or femininity. That's fine.

But the person still has a sex, that they were born with.

So when, the other day, a train company in the UK had to apologize for using the term "Good morning, ladies and gentleman", this should not have been changed for the non-binary person because they still have a sex.

I don't care what social construct gender they identify with. That's their personal belief.

But sex is immutable.

The train company should not have changed, nor apologized for, the welcome commentary.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 3:25pm

keano_afc wrote: »

But you dont believe transwomen are women. You dont have a definition of the word "woman", so you cant classify trans identified males as women when you dont believe the word has any meaning.

I didn’t say the word doesn’t have meaning. I said and have consistently said for the last 2 years of these threads that the meaning of words is not based on definitions. Definitions are inaccurate but handy approximations of meaning.

keano_afc · 26-05-2021 3:31pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn’t say the word doesn’t have meaning. I said and have consistently said for the last 2 years of these threads that the meaning of words is not based on definitions. Definitions are inaccurate but handy approximations of meaning.

Right, so you believe the word woman has a meaning. Can you clarify what you believe that meaning to be?

For you to confidently claim x are x, you obviously have a meaning of what x is, otherwise your position makes no sense.

One eyed Jack · 26-05-2021 3:34pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Also non-binary makes no sense.

You can claim you do not identify with masculinity or femininity. That's fine.

But the person still has a sex, that they were born with.

So when, the other day, a train company in the UK had to apologize for using the term "Good morning, ladies and gentleman", this should not have been changed for the non-binary person because they still have a sex.

I don't care what social construct gender they identify with. That's their personal belief.

But sex is immutable.

The train company should not have changed, nor apologized for, the welcome commentary.

It’s clearly not fine if you’re now getting your knickers in a twist about the term “non-binary” as it relates to gender, and not sex. People who generally use the term non-binary are referring to gender, and not sex, so your point about relating the example above to sex just doesn’t apply. By your own standards, the announcer would only be correct if they had referred to males and females, but that doesn’t have the same cordial tone to it as ladies and gentlemen.

That’s the second time btw you’ve suggested that gender is socially constructed, yet there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that gender is innate, and not socially constructed. If it weren’t innate, then there would be no issue with regard to people who reject the binary classification of gender in the same way as you reject the trans/cis binary classification of the relationship between sex and gender, which we have already established are two different but related concepts.

26-05-2021 3:37pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s clearly not fine if you’re now getting your knickers in a twist about the term “non-binary” as it relates to gender, and not sex. People who generally use the term non-binary are referring to gender, and not sex, so your point about relating the example above to sex just doesn’t apply. By your own standards, the announcer would only be correct if they had referred to males and females, but that doesn’t have the same cordial tone to it as ladies and gentlemen.

That’s the second time btw you’ve suggested that gender is socially constructed, yet there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that gender is innate, and not socially constructed. If it weren’t innate, then there would be no issue with regard to people who reject the binary classification of gender in the same way as you reject the trans/cis binary classification of the relationship between sex and gender, which we have already established are two different but related concepts.

If there are an infinite amount of genders they can't be innate.

Surely you can admit that?

26-05-2021 3:39pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn’t say the word doesn’t have meaning. I said and have consistently said for the last 2 years of these threads that the meaning of words is not based on definitions. Definitions are inaccurate but handy approximations of meaning.

Are you saying (to paraphrase Cathy Newman) that trans woman is an approximation of woman?

keano_afc · 26-05-2021 3:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If there are an infinite amount of genders they can't be innate.

Surely you can admit that?

An infinite amount of genders also makes the term "non-binary" completely redundant.

26-05-2021 3:40pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Speaking of sidelining. Are you ever going to tell me how children accurately use words without ever hearing the dictionary definition?

As you have stated words have no meaning without definitions.

By your logic, that depends on what you define as dictionary

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 3:42pm

keano_afc wrote: »

Right, so you believe the word woman has a meaning. Can you clarify what you believe that meaning to be?

For you to confidently claim x are x, you obviously have a meaning of what x is, otherwise your position makes no sense.

We have concepts in our minds. These concept usually come from seeing multiple examples of what something is and also examples of what something is not. At the same time as learning concepts we are generally exposed to the word our culture generally uses to describe that concept. This is how children learn pretty much all their words and meanings of words. It’s also true that within a culture people can use the same words and have something a little different or even completely different in mind.

Definitions can be a handy way to learn but certainly not the default way most people learn words and meaning.

26-05-2021 3:43pm

Away from the theory, sociology, and deliberate muddying of the waters; this is the kind of thing we're really dealing with:

Astralgender is a xenogender that feels connected to space, stars and the universe. Similar identities include stargender, galaxxin, genderspace.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 3:43pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By your logic, that depends on what you define as dictionary

Absolutely but the meaning of dictionary is pretty uncontroversial and it’s very likely we are in agreement on the meaning and we can have a conversation based on that shared understanding.

This is clearly not the case with sex/gender based terms and sexuality terms either.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 3:44pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you saying (to paraphrase Cathy Newman) that trans woman is an approximation of woman?

No obviously not as I said definitions are approximations and I think we both agree that the term “trans woman” is not a definition.

keano_afc · 26-05-2021 3:44pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

We have concepts in our minds. These concept usually come from seeing multiple examples of what something is and also examples of what something is not. At the same time as learning concepts we are generally exposed to the word our culture generally uses to describe that concept. This is how children learn pretty much all their words and meanings of words. It’s also true that within a culture people can use the same words and have something a little different or even completely different in mind.

Definitions can be a handy way to learn but certainly not the default way most people learn words and meaning.

Did you quote me by mistake? None of that has anything to do with the question I asked.

You said the word woman has a meaning. Please clarify what that meaning is. Its not a hard question.

26-05-2021 3:45pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Absolutely but the meaning of dictionary is pretty uncontroversial and it’s very likely we are in agreement on the meaning and we can have a conversation based on that shared understanding.

This is clearly not the case with sex/gender based terms and sexuality terms either.

What do you understand a woman to be?

26-05-2021 3:46pm

Gentlemanne wrote: »

It's perhaps superflous when in a discussion where gender is irrelevant - but this is literally what the thread is about. When discussing sexual orientation "gay" and "straight" are useful terms. So is this.

My understanding of why people don't use it is because they don't want to legitimise trans people. If you think thats not a charitable take then please read the below, highlight mine

EDIT: Ah, another. Ye really seem to want transgender people to hide in the closet.

If by meaning that I want to define trans woman as not biological woman, yes, I do not want to legitimise them as woman as they aren't.

I'm not delegitimising them as people, just not legitimising them as what they are not.

I certainly don't want them to hide in the closet. I want them to live comfortably. But that doesn't mean I should ignore biology

26-05-2021 3:47pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

No obviously not as I said definitions are approximations and I think we both agree that the term “trans woman” is not a definition.

What is it then?

26-05-2021 3:48pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s the second time btw you’ve suggested that gender is socially constructed, yet there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that gender is innate, and not socially constructed. If it weren’t innate, then there would be no issue with regard to people who reject the binary classification of gender in the same way as you reject the trans/cis binary classification of the relationship between sex and gender, which we have already established are two different but related concepts.

Then you are writing off, and disagreeing with, the agender community:

Agender = defined as not having a gender, as having a “lack of gender".

There is no end to this nonsense.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 3:49pm

keano_afc wrote: »

Did you quote me by mistake? None of that has anything to do with the question I asked.

You said the word woman has a meaning. Please clarify what that meaning is. Its not a hard question.

Trans women and cis women.

If you’re asking for a precise definition then I answered that in my above post.

Definitions are inherently imprecise approximations.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 3:50pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What is it then?

It’s both a word (or phrase) and a concept.

26-05-2021 3:50pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans women and cis women.

If you’re asking for a precise definition then I answered that in my above post.

Definitions are inherently imprecise approximations.

What do you understand a woman to be?

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 3:52pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What do you understand a woman to be?

I understand cis women to be women and trans women. To be women.

keano_afc · 26-05-2021 3:54pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans women and cis women.

If you’re asking for a precise definition then I answered that in my above post.

Definitions are inherently imprecise approximations.

And what does the word "woman" refer to there?

And that's not a meaning. Its an example. Its actually quite hilarious to see you avoid answering a very straightforward question.

To remind you, YOU said the word woman has a meaning. Two posts later, you still haven't divulged what that meaning is.

26-05-2021 3:55pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

I understand cis women to be women and trans women. To be women.

And what are "women"?

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 3:58pm

keano_afc wrote: »

And what does the word "woman" refer to there?

And that's not a meaning. Its an example. Its actually quite hilarious to see you avoid answering a very straightforward question.

To remind you, YOU said the word woman has a meaning. Two posts later, you still haven't divulged what that meaning is.

Because meaning resides in the mind and as I’ve said repeatedly definitions can only approximate that.

What’s hilarious is that I’ve consistently said that definitions are approximations of meaning and you keep asking me for a definition. I’m being consistent.

So to sum up. Meaning exists. Definitions do not give meaning. So to ask for a definition is silly.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 4:00pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And what are "women"?

I’ve just answered. Women are cis women and trans women. I can give you definitions that would be APPROXIMATIONS of the meaning. But you would have to accept that picking holes in the definitions would be pointless as my belief is that they are approximations and should only be used as insights into my conceptualisation of cis women and trans women and not used to exclude anyone from those groups.

26-05-2021 4:01pm

Lads we can close this off.

Mad that the mad feckers that will undoubtedly claim to be feminists are now insisting that woman means nothing.

Suffrage me hole.

Mad.

Protecting women and their identity is now misogynistic, transphobic and mean spirited.

keano_afc · 26-05-2021 4:02pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Because meaning resides in the mind and as I’ve said repeatedly definitions can only approximate that.

What’s hilarious is that I’ve consistently said that definitions are approximations of meaning and you keep asking me for a definition. I’m being consistent.

So to sum up. Meaning exists. Definitions do not give meaning. So to ask for a definition is silly.

You said the word woman has a meaning. Meaning exists, as you admit. However, you're unable to state what the meaning of the word woman is.

This is why you dont believe transwomen are women. You have no meaning for the word woman, so your belief is not based on any identifiable reality.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 4:02pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Lads we can close this off.

Mad that the mad feckers that will undoubtedly claim to be feminists are now insisting that woman means nothing.

Suffrage me hole.

Mad.

Protecting women and their identity is now misogynistic, transphobic and mean spirited.

That’s a bizarre interpretation of what I said. It’s not that women means nothing. I’ve REPEATEDLY said it has a meaning but the definitions are approximations of that meaning.

Also the same applies to men, tables, colours etc. So it’s not misogynistic.

keano_afc · 26-05-2021 4:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Lads we can close this off.

Mad that the mad feckers that will undoubtedly claim to be feminists are now insisting that woman means nothing.

Suffrage me hole.

Mad.

Protecting women and their identity is now misogynistic, transphobic and mean spirited.

Its genuinely insane the lengths they go to.

A woman is an adult human female. Its not that complicated. I get why she cant say that, but deep down its what she believes.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 4:05pm

keano_afc wrote: »

You said the word woman has a meaning. Meaning exists, as you admit. However, you're unable to state what the meaning of the word woman is.

This is why you dont believe transwomen are women. You have no meaning for the word woman, so your belief is not based on any identifiable reality.

Nope you’re still misunderstanding. I’ve said that definitions are approximations. I could give a definition that approximates the concepts but then you’d start picking holes in them in the mistaken belief that the definition is supposed to be a precise description of the meaning.

By the way this is all very basic and commonly accepted psychology and linguistics. And nothing to do with postmodernism at all. Any developmental psychologist would tell you the exact same thing. You are actually being extremely unscientific by painting me as being absurd.

keano_afc · 26-05-2021 4:08pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope you’re still misunderstanding. I’ve said that definitions are approximations. I could give a definition that approximates the concepts but then you’d start picking holes in them in the mistaken belief that the definition is supposed to be a precise description of the meaning.

By the way this is all very basic and commonly accepted psychology and linguistics. And nothing to do with postmodernism at all. Any developmental psychologist would tell you the exact same thing. You are actually being extremely unscientific by painting me as being absurd.

I think calling you absurd would be kind, to be honest.

26-05-2021 4:09pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Lads we can close this off.

Mad that the mad feckers that will undoubtedly claim to be feminists are now insisting that woman means nothing.

Suffrage me hole.

Mad.

Protecting women and their identity is now misogynistic, transphobic and mean spirited.

I agree.

"Women" now has no meaning, because it "resides in the mind".

You cannot debate someone who has wiped 99.2% of women off the market all because they want to accommodate the extreme belief that being a woman is just something that "resides in the mind" and has no objective definition beyond that.

This is beyond pathetic.

Over and out.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 4:10pm

I see nobody will answer as to how children can accurately use words that they have never heard the definition of.

This must be the 5th or 6th time I’ve asked. Anybody care to answer? Or is there a reason you won’t answer?

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 4:10pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree.

"Women" now has no meaning, because it "resides in the mind".

You cannot debate someone who has wiped 99.2% of women off the market all because they want to accommodate the extreme belief that being a woman is something that "resides in the mind".

Over and out.

Completely misrepresenting me.

One eyed Jack · 26-05-2021 4:12pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If there are an infinite amount of genders they can't be innate.

Surely you can admit that?

The concept of gender though, is what I mean when I say it’s innate. If eskimohunts idea were to have any validity, then they would struggle to explain the case of David Reimer for example, and we only know of that particular case because the sexologist in question, John Money, was an utter fcuknugget of the highest order.

My point is that there are no limitations on the terms, descriptors, labels, whatever word you want to use, that anyone can use to describe, or refer to, or again whatever word you want to use, to define their gender, and what their gender identity means to them, according to their understanding and beliefs about gender. It’s why I just don’t get too het up about gender, because I know the meaning and understanding of the concept varies across times and cultures and values and so on. On its own, the term isn’t particularly useful in terms of what information it provides about an individual. It’s the context in which it is used which provides a means to understand what a person or people are referring to when they use terms like masculine, feminine, non-binary, etc.

Consider it being used in the same way as a person’s name is part of their identity. Naming things isn’t innate, but the drive to name things and quantify things, is innate. It doesn’t matter for example that someone has the unfortunate name of Fanny Chmelar (as Bradley Walsh remarked “I’d be straight down the Courthouse in the morning”

). In their own language, which isn’t English, it doesn’t carry the same meaning, or have the same connotations as it does to us in the English language.

I often receive emails too from people who’s names send me into convulsions of laughter (I’m told I have a one-track mind :pac:), but in their own language or society, their names are as benign as John or Jane Smith is to us who are more familiar with English language. Speaking of emails, it’s often the case too that I have no idea of the gender or sex of the person with whom I am communicating, and there’s no way to tell from just their name, so I’m well-used to using the third person form of personal pronouns to refer to them, they, they’re and their, and it’s really not the big deal or unreasonable demand that it’s made out to be by some people on social media. I don’t feel that I am being compelled in any way to use a person’s preferred pronouns, and in just the same way as I often have to copy and paste a person’s name (because its important when addressing someone directly that I at least make the effort to spell their name correctly), it’s the same thing when referring to people how they wish to be referred to by their preferred pronouns.

It’s just basic manners and an extension of recognition of other people’s dignity and value as a human being, a courtesy if you will, no different than I would expect the same in return. I don’t consider that an unreasonable request, but some people imagine they can refer to other people however they like and imagine there should be no consequences for their actions. It’s never been the case that anyone could be as rude, obnoxious and just downright arsehole behaviour and attitudes towards other people, without there being any consequences for their actions!

keano_afc · 26-05-2021 4:13pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

I see nobody will answer as to how children can accurately use words that they have never heard the definition of.

This must be the 5th or 6th time I’ve asked. Anybody care to answer? Or is there a reason you won’t answer?

Maybe the answer resides in the mind.

I'm out. Too much crazy in here for me.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 4:15pm

keano_afc wrote: »

Maybe the answer resides in the mind.

I'm out. Too much crazy in here for me.

Yes the answer does reside in the mind. The fact that you call that crazy is truly shocking.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/how-children-learn-meanings-words

Summary
How do children learn that the word "dog" refers not to all four-legged animals, and not just to Ralph, but to all members of a particular species? How do they learn the meanings of verbs like "think," adjectives like "good," and words for abstract entities such as "mortgage" and "story"? The acquisition of word meaning is one of the fundamental issues in the study of mind.

According to Paul Bloom, children learn words through sophisticated cognitive abilities that exist for other purposes. These include the ability to infer others' intentions, the ability to acquire concepts, an appreciation of syntactic structure, and certain general learning and memory abilities. Although other researchers have associated word learning with some of these capacities, Bloom is the first to show how a complete explanation requires all of them. The acquisition of even simple nouns requires rich conceptual, social, and linguistic capacities interacting in complex ways.

volchitsa · 26-05-2021 4:42pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes the answer does reside in the mind. The fact that you call that crazy is truly shocking.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/how-children-learn-meanings-words

Summary
How do children learn that the word "dog" refers not to all four-legged animals, and not just to Ralph, but to all members of a particular species? How do they learn the meanings of verbs like "think," adjectives like "good," and words for abstract entities such as "mortgage" and "story"? The acquisition of word meaning is one of the fundamental issues in the study of mind.

According to Paul Bloom, children learn words through sophisticated cognitive abilities that exist for other purposes. These include the ability to infer others' intentions, the ability to acquire concepts, an appreciation of syntactic structure, and certain general learning and memory abilities. Although other researchers have associated word learning with some of these capacities, Bloom is the first to show how a complete explanation requires all of them. The acquisition of even simple nouns requires rich conceptual, social, and linguistic capacities interacting in complex ways.

Simple. Children know the difference between a cat and a dog before they have the words to name them. A bit like they know the difference between men and women very early on too.

I wonder how on earth you think that all this means that children are wrong to assume that those differences that they can see between men and women are meaningful.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 5:01pm

"volchitsa;117275266&#8221 wrote:

I wonder how on earth you think that all this means that children are wrong to assume that those differences that they can see between men and women are meaningful.

I never said anything of the sort.

26-05-2021 6:49pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

I never said anything of the sort.

So you acknowledge that biological men are different than biological women and they are (without extensive surgery and without make-up) easily distinguished?

And therefore men are different than women?

26-05-2021 6:52pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Completely misrepresenting me.

Defining the word women by using the word women is absolutely defining the position you hold

26-05-2021 6:54pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

That’s a bizarre interpretation of what I said. It’s not that women means nothing. I’ve REPEATEDLY said it has a meaning but the definitions are approximations of that meaning.

Also the same applies to men, tables, colours etc. So it’s not misogynistic.

So **** definitions is your stance.

Definitions are a construct.

At the end of the day chief, I'm arguing against someone who either pretends to, or can't, define what a woman is. That's something my daughter could do when she was able to speak.

It's either feeding into some sick need to be a white knight or arguing against someone who isn't capable of knowing the difference between a man or a woman.

Either way, I fail to believe you are acting in good faith or you actually care about the topic.

I'll leave you be.

My final point and I can't believe I need to reiterate it, is that kindergarten cop was right.

You keep fighting the illogical fight.

LLMMLL · 26-05-2021 7:02pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you acknowledge that biological men are different than biological women and they are (without extensive surgery and without make-up) easily distinguished?

And therefore men are different than women?

Yes people with xx chromosomes are different from people with xy chromosomes.

And yes women (cis women and trans women) are different to men (cis men and trans men)

Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

Comments