What Is a Woman? Controversial New Movie (2 Viewers)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't know why they can't just be satisfied with "civil unions" and insist on the word "marriage".  We need the precision to keep anyone from being mistaken that their relationship is just as valued as mine.  They shouldn't use words like "husband", "wife", "spouse" either because they also have special meaning.  And I'm tired of being called a bigot because I won't cater to the wishes of a few people just because the "empty minded" on the other side suddenly want to treat people with the dignity and the respect that these words offer.  No!  Why should I give up my perfectly good words for a few people.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I’m not sure what Hawley did or said wrong.  

Dude asked a simple legitimate question and she accused him of being a transphobe and inciting violence against trans.  That seems like an outrageous accusation that requires a response, no?

He knew the answer before asking. It was for show.
 

 

[djmich]

He knew the answer before asking. It was for show.
 

I think a lot of questions to answers are known or assumed prior to the question, with the purpose to get the answer from the expert on the record.

Regardless, I don’t think asking a question, and specifically what he asked,  in any circumstance warrants being accused of being a transphobe and inciting violence.

 

[LawFitz]

I don't understand why it's so wrong to distinguish cis from trans via our vernacular. I thought we were striving for a world where we embrace our differences. If transmen and transwomen are given equal opportunity and treatment (and I am in favor of doing so everywhere except sports and safety zones - e.g. women's bathrooms, locker rooms, jails, etc.), then why is it such a big deal to denote trans?

To me, it's partly about language not becoming confusing (i.e. no to 'They') and partly that I don't want transwomen in women's safe spaces, so keeping that verbal delineation is key for identification - no other agenda beyond that. Trans are people too and deserve the same amount of respect, but we shouldn't infringe on the rights and protections of cis women in order to provide that respect. And I don't think this cuts both ways. If a transman wants to use men's facilities or engage in men's sports, go for it. It's cis women that need protection from the fringes of this movement.

Lastly, as to @moleculo's point about being a jerk for refusing some of these language concepts... I hear you and generally agree. If someone asks to be called a She and I call her and He, then I am a jerk. Where I draw the line on that though, is laws against doing so. Over time, if society and future generations deem trans pronouns to be politically correct, they will become more mainstream as our language naturally evolves to fit the social paradigm shift. There is no justification in my mind for mandating that shift by threat of law - Canada and any states doing so are way out of line and only doing more harm than good as they push away moderates like me.

 

[moleculo]

I don't know why they can't just be satisfied with "civil unions" and insist on the word "marriage".  We need the precision to keep anyone from being mistaken that their relationship is just as valued as mine.  They shouldn't use words like "husband", "wife", "spouse" either because they also have special meaning.  And I'm tired of being called a bigot because I won't cater to the wishes of a few people just because the "empty minded" on the other side suddenly want to treat people with the dignity and the respect that these words offer.  No!  Why should I give up my perfectly good words for a few people.

I believe I made this exact same argument on these boards maybe 15 years ago.

 

[moleculo]

I don't understand why it's so wrong to distinguish cis from trans via our vernacular. I thought we were striving for a world where we embrace our differences. If transmen and transwomen are given equal opportunity and treatment (and I am in favor of doing so everywhere except sports and safety zones - e.g. women's bathrooms, locker rooms, jails, etc.), then why is it such a big deal to denote trans?

To me, it's partly about language not becoming confusing (i.e. no to 'They') and partly that I don't want transwomen in women's safe spaces, so keeping that verbal delineation is key for identification - no other agenda beyond that. Trans are people too and deserve the same amount of respect, but we shouldn't infringe on the rights and protections of cis women in order to provide that respect. And I don't think this cuts both ways. If a transman wants to use men's facilities or engage in men's sports, go for it. It's cis women that need protection from the fringes of this movement.

Lastly, as to @moleculo's point about being a jerk for refusing some of these language concepts... I hear you and generally agree. If someone asks to be called a She and I call her and He, then I am a jerk. Where I draw the line on that though, is laws against doing so. Over time, if society and future generations deem trans pronouns to be politically correct, they will become more mainstream as our language naturally evolves to fit the social paradigm shift. There is no justification in my mind for mandating that shift by threat of law - Canada and any states doing so are way out of line and only doing more harm than good as they push away moderates like me.

yup.  I maintain that we have a right to be a jerk.  Civility is not enshrined, by any measure, in the Constitution.  Along those lines, zealots have the right to be jerks too and whine about whatever they want.  That goes back to my earlier point - we (as in society) have not been doing a good job of ignoring zealots. 

 

[djmich]

I don't know why they can't just be satisfied with "civil unions" and insist on the word "marriage".  We need the precision to keep anyone from being mistaken that their relationship is just as valued as mine.  They shouldn't use words like "husband", "wife", "spouse" either because they also have special meaning.  And I'm tired of being called a bigot because I won't cater to the wishes of a few people just because the "empty minded" on the other side suddenly want to treat people with the dignity and the respect that these words offer.  No!  Why should I give up my perfectly good words for a few people.

Marriage, which is nothing but a legal relationship can be legally redefined if desired… and basic human anatomy, are completely different, but you know that.

I do think overall we should be accepting and accommodating of people.  I don’t care if John wants to be called Jane, I support him with that.  I’d call him, “she” in routine conversation also.   But at some point though science and facts matter and the words we use should be consistent and accommodating.  If you are man and want to be considered a woman, being called a trans woman seems like a reasonable accommodation while also not pretending human anatomy isn’t a thing.

I was fine with gay marriage back in the day, although I also understood the position of bigots like Barack Obama, who was against it.

 

[moleculo]

To the second - that's quite an extrapolation.

Why?

In just the past two years or so, a very large number of otherwise-healthy adults all shrugged their shoulders and said "You know what -- maybe I really don't know the difference between men and women after all" because that's what their tribe told them they were supposed to say.  Why should I not interpret that as a sign of of an empty mind?

people making a conscious decision to be inclusive with their language has no bearing on their understanding of 6th grade level biology.

 

[LawFitz]

I maintain that we have a right to be a jerk.  

This sentence right here is precisely why we must ALL - at minimum - unite the clans to eliminate the usage of 'they/them' in the trans-vernacular evolution! When I first read your response, I literally had to do a double take on this sentence to make sure this was a simple grammar mistake and not some subtle trans/they/them moment.

Hard no to They/Them/We when we are talking about a single individual!!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Marriage, which is nothing but a legal relationship which can be legally redefined if desired… and basic human anatomy, are completely different, but you know that.

I do think overall we should be accepting and accommodating of people.  I don’t care if John wants to be called Jane, I support him with that.  I’d call him, “she” in routine conversation also.   But at some point though science and facts matter and the words we use should be consistent and accommodating.  If you are man and want to be considered a woman, being called a trans woman seems like a reasonable accommodation while also not pretending human anatomy isn’t a thing.

I was fine with gay marriage back in the day, although I also understood the position of bigots like Barack Obama, who was against it.

Also, marriage absolutely is a socially-constructed thing that wouldn't exist if humans didn't invent it.  Whereas sex is something that exists at surface-level reality and exists independently of us.  Conflating these two things is a category error.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Marriage, which is nothing but a legal relationship which can be legally redefined if desired… and basic human anatomy, are completely different, but you know that.

What?  Marriage was defined by God in the very beginning of the bible.  At my church marriage is sacrament*.   

*Actually not at my church, but other Christian denominations are different.

 

[moleculo]

Marriage, which is nothing but a legal relationship which can be legally redefined if desired… and basic human anatomy, are completely different, but you know that.

I do think overall we should be accepting and accommodating of people.  I don’t care if John wants to be called Jane, I support him with that.  But at some point though science and facts matter and the words we use should be consistent and accommodating.  If you are man and want to be considered a woman, being called a trans woman seems like a reasonable accommodation while also not pretending human anatomy isn’t a thing.

I was fine with gay marriage back in the day, although I also understood the position of bigots like Barack Obama, who was against it.

but you don't have to ignore biology to call a trans woman a woman.  Is "woman" in that case 100%, clinically accurate?  No.  Does it matter outside of a medical setting?  Also no.

There are plenty of cases where characteristics have clinical terms and common terms.  English is a jacked up language.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

people making a conscious decision to be inclusive with their language has no bearing on their understanding of 6th grade level biology.

Do you think it's inclusive to refer to women as "bodies with vaginas?"  That sounds like something a lizard person would say, not an actual human being.

 

[moleculo]

Do you think it's inclusive to refer to women as "bodies with vaginas?"  That sounds like something a lizard person would say, not an actual human being.

no, that's stupid.

 

[djmich]

What?  Marriage was defined by God in the very beginning of the bible.  At my church marriage is sacrament*.   

*Actually not at my church, but other Christian denominations are different.

Im atheist and therefore allowed to make logical decisions not bound by what came down from the heavens .

Whats interesting is that in this thread you have people who are very “left posters” arguing that trans women should not be allowed to compete with cis women or be imprisoned with them.  So, if they are women, why create any distinction at all?

 

[djmich]

no, that's stupid.

Haha, so you get to be the arbiter of what’s inclusive and what’s stupid?

 

[djmich]

but you don't have to ignore biology to call a trans woman a woman.  Is "woman" in that case 100%, clinically accurate?  No.  Does it matter outside of a medical setting?  Also no.

There are plenty of cases where characteristics have clinical terms and common terms.  English is a jacked up language.

What do you mean outside of a medical setting?  Is a soccer field a medical setting?

 

[John123]

but you don't have to ignore biology to call a trans woman a woman.  Is "woman" in that case 100%, clinically accurate?  No.  Does it matter outside of a medical setting?  Also no.

There are plenty of cases where characteristics have clinical terms and common terms.  English is a jacked up language.

If this change in language was isolated to casual conversation I might agree with you.  But now you have professional organizations mandating what terms should be used in those medical settings you're referencing.  The scientists are being compromised and bending to the same woke terminology. 

And this doesn't even get in to the they/them stuff.  I've read newspaper articles where they use that terminology and those articles become somewhat unreadable to me.  Certainly, I can't speed read them as I do most things. 

Language is important, and precision in language is important as well, and that precision is being lost. 

 

[moleculo]

Haha, so you get to be the arbiter of what’s inclusive and what’s stupid?

I get to be the arbiter of what I think is stupid.  As do you. 

you have the right to ignore anyone insisting on referring to women as "bodies with vaginas", and they have the right to think you are a jerk.  For the life of me, I can't understand why so much attention is paid to zealots, especially those in the twitterverse.

 

[moleculo]

What do you mean outside of a medical setting?  Is a soccer field a medical setting?

Soccer is only a medical setting when I'm operating*.

*or, more accurately, tearing my calf muscle in a non-contact situation away from the ball.

 

[moleculo]

If this change in language was isolated to casual conversation I might agree with you.  But now you have professional organizations mandating what terms should be used in those medical settings you're referencing.  The scientists are being compromised and bending to the same woke terminology. 

And this doesn't even get in to the they/them stuff.  I've read newspaper articles where they use that terminology and those articles become somewhat unreadable to me.  Certainly, I can't speed read them as I do most things. 

Language is important, and precision in language is important as well, and that precision is being lost. 

so what happens to those scientists who "bend to the same woke terminology?"  do you think that will fundamentally change anything?

if you find a newspaper to be confusing, I suggest writing an angry letter to the editor.

 

[djmich]

I get to be the arbiter of what I think is stupid.  As do you. 

you have the right to ignore anyone insisting on referring to women as "bodies with vaginas", and they have the right to think you are a jerk.  For the life of me, I can't understand why so much attention is paid to zealots, especially those in the twitterverse.

Sure, because the same zealots are insisting that men be called women and vice versa.

 

[moleculo]

Sure, because the same zealots are insisting that men be called women and vice versa.

you do you.

 

[djmich]

Soccer is only a medical setting when I'm operating*.

*or, more accurately, tearing my calf muscle in a non-contact situation away from the ball.

So you don’t think the “clinical” definition of a woman matters when determining sports team eligibility, prison system assignment, etc.

 

[moleculo]

So you don’t think the “clinical” definition of a woman matters when determining sports team eligibility, prison system assignment, etc.

this will really put your head in a spinner, but I think trans women should not compete in sports against natural women.

prison system - i think they should be in prison with women, but I could hear arguments against.  it's not something I care about a whole lot.

 

[moleculo]

To your first paragraph: I'm pretty sure the Peoples Front of Judea (or was it Judean People's Front?) had this all figured out years ago.

To the second - that's quite an extrapolation.

I don' t think my joke above landed. If you didn't catch the reference, here is the scene I was referring to.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Im atheist and therefore allowed to make logical decisions not bound by what came down from the heavens .

But my point is that these were the gay marriage arguments and they look rather familiar to the arguments here.  After hearing "follow the science" in Covid threads we have a few that think it is cute to offer their fourth grade understanding of human biology as some kind of equivalent as the "defined by God".   Using science as justification to demand precision in language that doesn't exist in actual science.

Whats interesting is that in this thread you have people who are very “left posters” arguing that trans women should not be allowed to compete with cis women or be imprisoned with them.  So, if they are women, why create any distinction at all?

Because left leaning posters in these threads are largely not ideologues with hard "yes" or hard "no" opinions being feed to their "empty minds".  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Also, we should push back on the notion that this kind of language is "inclusive."  It isn't.  

You want to know what sort of language is inclusive?  Simple, easy-to-understand language that states your point succinctly and honestly.  "Restrictions on abortion make women less free" is a sentence that anybody can understand instantly.  

By way of contrast, TRAs talk like aliens who just stepped off a space ship and have only a rough understanding of human beings.  We know what they mean when they talk about "people with cervixes" and "menstruaters" because we belong to the managerial class that attends all those DEI trainings.  But put yourself in the shoes of a 45 year old woman with a high school diploma, who has never taken a Gender Studies course.  "Restrictions on abortion make people capable of becoming pregnant less free" is a really weird statement, and that person is rightly going to wonder WTF you're talking about.  

In medical settings, where you want to talk to people in ways that they immediately understand, it's less inclusive to talk about "cervix health" and more inclusive to talk about "women's health."  Women who have their cervix removed generally know that they don't have a cervix, but women who haven't marinated in the new lizard person language don't necessarily understand that "people with cervixes" is supposed to be a synonym for what they mean by "women."  It's always more important to be understood than to flaunt your ideological rigidity. 

More broadly, the point of this kind of language is to separate the in-group from the out-group.  Think of terms like "Latinx" or "people of color."  People use this language to signal to one another that they're members of the tribe in good standing and can be trusted.  Only out-group rubes use terms like "Latino" or "minorities" these days.  The same goes with this new gender language.  If "people capable of pregnancy" ever catches on (it won't), the language will "evolve" in a few years to some other term.  Once everybody starts using that terminology, it loses its usefulness as a signal.  That's why these activist groups neve settle on one set of terminology for too long.  Regardless, it's pretty much the opposite of accuracy to call this "inclusive."    

Edit: In case you're wondering, "minorities" has been replaced by "minoritized people" or (not kidding) "people experiencing minoritization."  It brings me no joy to report this.

 

[quick-hands]

Do you think it's inclusive to refer to women as "bodies with vaginas?"  That sounds like something a lizard person would say, not an actual human being.

Or Dan Akroyd in coneheads.    MmgwaaaBirthing Person.

 

[djmich]

this will really put your head in a spinner, but I think trans women should not compete in sports against natural women.

prison system - i think they should be in prison with women, but I could hear arguments against.  it's not something I care about a whole lot.

I am in a spinner because I thought you were advocating for dropping the trans in front of women?

 

[DropKick]

you do you.

Did you ever think that, when you graduated high school, that someday you would be insulting strangers while trying to convince them that biological men are women and vice versa?

 

[moleculo]

I am in a spinner because I thought you were advocating for dropping the trans in front of women?

yup.  I never claimed to have all of the answers or be completely consistent.  In fact, I think I claimed the opposite.

 

[djmich]

But my point is that these were the gay marriage arguments and they look rather familiar to the arguments here.  After hearing "follow the science" in Covid threads we have a few that think it is cute to offer their fourth grade understanding of human biology as some kind of equivalent as the "defined by God".   Using science as justification to demand precision in language that doesn't exist in actual science.

Because left leaning posters in these threads are largely not ideologues with hard "yes" or hard "no" opinions being feed to their "empty minds".  

 Yes or No, do you think we should drop trans from our language and only consider humans men or women as independently determined by that individual?

 

[djmich]

yup.  I never claimed to have all of the answers or be completely consistent.  In fact, I think I claimed the opposite.

That’s cool, you’re a jerk like the rest of us then!

 

[moleculo]

That’s cool, you’re a jerk like the rest of us then!

haha, I never claimed to be anything else.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

 Yes or No, do you think we should drop trans from our language and only consider humans men or women as independently determined by that individual?

I think when I see someone that appears to be presenting themselves as a woman that I should treat them as a woman until I learn that I should otherwise.  If I mistakenly use a wrong pronoun then I'll try to remember in the future.  Since, I'm terrible with names just using names is not so simple as it is for others.  I see no reason to describe any individual as trans or cis in any casual conversation.  So in casual conversation "yes" trans and cis offer nothing positive to the conversation.

But there are other kinds of conversations and interaction where the usage of the word brings meaning to the conversation.  So "no" in these contexts.

 

[moleculo]

Also, we should push back on the notion that this kind of language is "inclusive."  It isn't.  

You want to know what sort of language is inclusive?  Simple, easy-to-understand language that states your point succinctly and honestly.  "Restrictions on abortion make women less free" is a sentence that anybody can understand instantly.  

By way of contrast, TRAs talk like aliens who just stepped off a space ship and have only a rough understanding of human beings.  We know what they mean when they talk about "people with cervixes" and "menstruaters" because we belong to the managerial class that attends all those DEI trainings.  But put yourself in the shoes of a 45 year old woman with a high school diploma, who has never taken a Gender Studies course.  "Restrictions on abortion make people capable of becoming pregnant less free" is a really weird statement, and that person is rightly going to wonder WTF you're talking about.  

In medical settings, where you want to talk to people in ways that they immediately understand, it's less inclusive to talk about "cervix health" and more inclusive to talk about "women's health."  Women who have their cervix removed generally know that they don't have a cervix, but women who haven't marinated in the new lizard person language don't necessarily understand that "people with cervixes" is supposed to be a synonym for what they mean by "women."  It's always more important to be understood than to flaunt your ideological rigidity. 

More broadly, the point of this kind of language is to separate the in-group from the out-group.  Think of terms like "Latinx" or "people of color."  People use this language to signal to one another that they're members of the tribe in good standing and can be trusted.  Only out-group rubes use terms like "Latino" or "minorities" these days.  The same goes with this new gender language.  If "people capable of pregnancy" ever catches on (it won't), the language will "evolve" in a few years to some other term.  Once everybody starts using that terminology, it loses its usefulness as a signal.  That's why these activist groups neve settle on one set of terminology for too long.  Regardless, it's pretty much the opposite of accuracy to call this "inclusive."    

Edit: In case you're wondering, "minorities" has been replaced by "minoritized people" or (not kidding) "people experiencing minoritization."  It brings me no joy to report this.

not that anyone cares, but I do not support this double-speak.  Language is best when it is succinct, but (un)fortunately English leaves lots of wiggle room where context is required for accuracy. 

Day to day speak, I say call a trans woman a woman.  For medical journal purposes, trans women (and their doctors) would have to understand that an article describing periods would not apply to them.  This doesn't have to be that difficult.

 

[djmich]

I think when I see someone that appears to be presenting themselves as a woman that I should treat them as a woman until I learn that I should otherwise.  If I mistakenly use a wrong pronoun then I'll try to remember in the future.  Since, I'm terrible with names just using names is not so simple as it is for others.  I see no reason to describe any individual as trans or cis in any casual conversation.  So in casual conversation "yes" trans and cis offer nothing positive to the conversation.

But there are other kinds of conversations and interaction where the usage of the word brings meaning to the conversation.  So "no" in these contexts.

not that anyone cares, but I do not support this double-speak.  Language is best when it is succinct, but (un)fortunately English leaves lots of wiggle room where context is required for accuracy. 

Day to day speak, I say call a trans woman a woman.  For medical journal purposes, trans women (and their doctors) would have to understand that an article describing periods would not apply to them.  This doesn't have to be that difficult.

I think you guys probably realize this but I think largely we are saying the same thing (although the use of bigot and jerk makes me think maybe not).

bottomfeeder, I behave the same way you do when interacting with a person who is presenting themselves as a woman.  In generic conversation I have no problem at all calling them by their new name, or she or really even woman (although I don’t use the word to describe people in everyday conversation).

Where I think we’re getting tripped up is that we all know they are not anatomical women.  Moleculo, you reference that in a “clinical setting”.  There are also very valid arguments around things like sports and a number of other settings where physiology is important.  You both know there is a difference.

The hangup is when we move from accommodating use of language to when the people that are being accommodated insist that the accommodation is in fact not just an accommodation but is the literal changing of what a biological woman is. We know it’s not and just because I offer you the accommodation doesn’t change that fact.  So whether it’s for clinical purposes or whatever besides just being accommodating…they are in fact a trans woman.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

It's always more important to be understood than to flaunt your ideological rigidity.

If confusion is part of the ideology, you get to do both.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Imagine trying to explain that clip with Hawley and the crazy lady to a normal person.  Specifically, imagine trying to convey the idea that if you don't believe that men can get pregnant it must mean that you think that trans people don't exist.  How do you even make that argument make sense to a person who isn't already part of the cult?  If you didn't show them the video, would they even believe you that that's a thing that people actually think and say out loud, or would they think that you were just pulling their leg? 

 

[unckeyherb]

Also, we should push back on the notion that this kind of language is "inclusive."  It isn't.  

You want to know what sort of language is inclusive?  Simple, easy-to-understand language that states your point succinctly and honestly.  "Restrictions on abortion make women less free" is a sentence that anybody can understand instantly.  

By way of contrast, TRAs talk like aliens who just stepped off a space ship and have only a rough understanding of human beings.  We know what they mean when they talk about "people with cervixes" and "menstruaters" because we belong to the managerial class that attends all those DEI trainings.  But put yourself in the shoes of a 45 year old woman with a high school diploma, who has never taken a Gender Studies course.  "Restrictions on abortion make people capable of becoming pregnant less free" is a really weird statement, and that person is rightly going to wonder WTF you're talking about.  

In medical settings, where you want to talk to people in ways that they immediately understand, it's less inclusive to talk about "cervix health" and more inclusive to talk about "women's health."  Women who have their cervix removed generally know that they don't have a cervix, but women who haven't marinated in the new lizard person language don't necessarily understand that "people with cervixes" is supposed to be a synonym for what they mean by "women."  It's always more important to be understood than to flaunt your ideological rigidity. 

More broadly, the point of this kind of language is to separate the in-group from the out-group.  Think of terms like "Latinx" or "people of color."  People use this language to signal to one another that they're members of the tribe in good standing and can be trusted.  Only out-group rubes use terms like "Latino" or "minorities" these days.  The same goes with this new gender language.  If "people capable of pregnancy" ever catches on (it won't), the language will "evolve" in a few years to some other term.  Once everybody starts using that terminology, it loses its usefulness as a signal.  That's why these activist groups neve settle on one set of terminology for too long.  Regardless, it's pretty much the opposite of accuracy to call this "inclusive."    

Edit: In case you're wondering, "minorities" has been replaced by "minoritized people" or (not kidding) "people experiencing minoritization."  It brings me no joy to report this.

Yep.  Its akin to signaling to the other folks in track suits and matching sneakers that you also are looking forward to Hale-Bopp facilitating your graduation from the "Human Evolutionary Level."  Normal people hear this stuff and blanche.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The hangup is when we move from accommodating use of language to when the people that are being accommodated insist that the accommodation is in fact not just an accommodation but is the literal changing of what a biological woman is

Like unethical doctors I am sure that such people exist but I think outside of a few bubbles - academia/college campuses (maybe) and 24 hour news opinion shows these are the exceptions.  Or maybe I'm just a bad outsider of my tribe not catching on to this being all around me because I don't see it outside of here and an occasional email signature with pronoun preferences listed. 

Maybe I need to get out more.  Head to the big city to have my empty mind molded properly.

 

[unckeyherb]

Imagine trying to explain that clip with Hawley and the crazy lady to a normal person.  Specifically, imagine trying to convey the idea that if you don't believe that men can get pregnant it must mean that you think that trans people don't exist.  How do you even make that argument make sense to a person who isn't already part of the cult?  If you didn't show them the video, would they even believe you that that's a thing that people actually think and say out loud, or would they think that you were just pulling their leg? 

Or, just as insanely, that stating that "women get pregnant, men don't get pregnant" is violence.  Its up there with the silence is violence type of insanity that seeks to re-work definitions.  The end result of course is that if enough people believe in this crap then the idealogues don't have to be challenged at all.  A challenge is simply violence and we should punish those who are violent.

 

[moleculo]

I think you guys probably realize this but I think largely we are saying the same thing (although the use of bigot and jerk makes me think maybe not).

bottomfeeder, I behave the same way you do when interacting with a person who is presenting themselves as a woman.  In generic conversation I have no problem at all calling them by their new name, or she or really even woman (although I don’t use the word to describe people in everyday conversation).

Where I think we’re getting tripped up is that we all know they are not anatomical women.  Moleculo, you reference that in a “clinical setting”.  There are also very valid arguments around things like sports and a number of other settings where physiology is important.  You both know there is a difference.

The hangup is when we move from accommodating use of language to when the people that are being accommodated insist that the accommodation is in fact not just an accommodation but is the literal changing of what a biological woman is. We know it’s not and just because I offer you the accommodation doesn’t change that fact.  So whether it’s for clinical purposes or whatever besides just being accommodating…they are in fact a trans woman.

my entire posting this afternoon stemmed from the discussion with @IvanKaramazov that we should consider dropping "trans" from "trans-woman".  That's it.  

I am not pushing for "uterus having person" or any other nonsense.  When I ask for inclusive language, all I mean is to not speak of trans people as "others".  Further,  anyone who refuses to call a trans-woman a woman will be considered by some people a jerk... and you have the right to be a jerk.  I am not pushing for inclusion in sports, I am not pushing for anything to do with prison housing, and I am against regulation of speech.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I don't know why they can't just be satisfied with "civil unions" and insist on the word "marriage".  We need the precision to keep anyone from being mistaken that their relationship is just as valued as mine.  They shouldn't use words like "husband", "wife", "spouse" either because they also have special meaning.  And I'm tired of being called a bigot because I won't cater to the wishes of a few people just because the "empty minded" on the other side suddenly want to treat people with the dignity and the respect that these words offer.  No!  Why should I give up my perfectly good words for a few people.

This stuff wasn't all that long ago. You'd think they'd notice the patterns and how time and social evolution leaves them on the wrong side of history. 

Listen, I get it. Old white guy doesn't like change. Guess what. It happens anyway whether you're kicking and screaming or not. 

 

[Boston]

Imagine trying to explain that clip with Hawley and the crazy lady to a normal person.  Specifically, imagine trying to convey the idea that if you don't believe that men can get pregnant it must mean that you think that trans people don't exist.  How do you even make that argument make sense to a person who isn't already part of the cult?  If you didn't show them the video, would they even believe you that that's a thing that people actually think and say out loud, or would they think that you were just pulling their leg? 

I listen/read to some of these people, and I am beginning to think they have a different definition of the word violence...which probably makes sense since we can't agree on what a woman is anymore.

 

[djmich]

This stuff wasn't all that long ago. You'd think they'd notice the patterns and how time and social evolution leaves them on the wrong side of history. 

Listen, I get it. Old white guy doesn't like change. Guess what. It happens anyway whether you're kicking and screaming or not. 

Lol, it’s always very telling when the “inclusion” group likes singling old white men

 

[djmich]

my entire posting this afternoon stemmed from the discussion with @IvanKaramazov that we should consider dropping "trans" from "trans-woman".  That's it.  

I am not pushing for "uterus having person" or any other nonsense.  When I ask for inclusive language, all I mean is to not speak of trans people as "others".  Further,  anyone who refuses to call a trans-woman a woman will be considered by some people a jerk... and you have the right to be a jerk.  I am not pushing for inclusion in sports, I am not pushing for anything to do with prison housing, and I am against regulation of speech.

Ok, just understand that in many peoples eyes you’re being a jerk based on what you’re saying you’re ok with…or more importantly what you’re not ok with (actually what you think is nonsense).

So when you are telling me I’d be considered a jerk by some people if I don’t agree that men are women…it’s  .  You just like to fancy yourself a more inclusive shade of black.

 

[moleculo]

Ok, just understand that in many peoples eyes you’re being a jerk based on what you’re saying you’re ok with…or more importantly what you’re not ok with (actually what you think is nonsense).

So when you are telling me I’d be considered a jerk by some people if I don’t agree that men are women…it’s  .  You just like to fancy yourself a more inclusive shade of black.

Fortunately, I don't go on twitter and I'm pretty doggone good at ignoring people.  I'm not going to get my *ahem* panties in a bunch because someone I don't know thinks I'm a jerk.

ETA: I have failed in this regard the past couple of days.  I responded to people I previously had on ignore, and I regret it.

 

[BladeRunner]

my entire posting this afternoon stemmed from the discussion with @IvanKaramazov that we should consider dropping "trans" from "trans-woman".  That's it.  

I am not pushing for "uterus having person" or any other nonsense.  When I ask for inclusive language, all I mean is to not speak of trans people as "others".  Further,  anyone who refuses to call a trans-woman a woman will be considered by some people a jerk... and you have the right to be a jerk.  I am not pushing for inclusion in sports, I am not pushing for anything to do with prison housing, and I am against regulation of speech.

Actually, the "jerk" in this case is the person who expects to be called something they are not.  WE haven't changed. THEY have.

A "trans woman" is a "trans woman" (i.e. a biological male), NOT a "woman".  When people say "woman", they are talking about those people we have known about since the beginning of mankind.  Not this fake misappropriated version.