Your example is a medical condition. A"syndrome"
Thank you for making me seem more prescient than I actually am.
Um, 34-25-36? Not sure what you’re asking me here.
Np, eye. But I would say it’s because you have me repeating the same thing as you yourself repeat the same things. I have addressed this Exception…rule…blah blah.
Referring to this. Have we hit the number according to consesus
What is womanhood?
Yes, exactly. Anyone and everyone, no matter what, can claim womanhood, or no? Meaning it has no definition at all?
Thanks. And that’s OK. They were having fun. Typical Tnation.
Would Bang. Check yes or no.
I had a bit of fun thinking about the topic. There’s very little science to talk about with that clip. “…has become the dominant way of thinking in academia, and is the supreme achievement of academics. Ever.” mic drop. So now he’s going to go all postmodern Marxist on all categories. Lol.
I’m all for seeing women study engineering or men deciding to be preschool teachers if they wish. All good. And I’m all for being kind to TG people. Having something rare like left-handedness or green eyes, or being gay doesn’t mean those things aren’t part of the normal distribution in humans. We don’t have to throw out all categories because we have some rare or unusual characteristics.
Other than that he’s an idiot. That part where he corrects Rogan for even using the term “gay man.” Whatever, dude.
@ the last 6 minutes. Yikes. I had to laugh when Joe Rogan said, “Kinsey was hangin’ with some freaks!!” Joe, Kinsey was a freak.
1 Like
OK cool. Now address homosexuality, non-CAIS intersexuality, and transgenderism, and you will have dispatched with all the ‘anomalies.’
Judging by the scientific literature concerning gender and sexuality, the number needed to warrant jettisoning the obsolete orthodoxy you espouse was hit many years ago.
If you can’t define it then how can you falsify someone’s else’s feelings on that issue? You are going to tell a transsexual man he doesn’t feel like woman when you can’t even define how it feels to be a man.
Then you believe it has no definition. So, I don’t to agree with them. Thanks
Further, if womanhood is anything atl all one individually feels, why would I abandon my feelings? “No thanks, I believe/feel differently. I will not be referring to you as her, she, etc. I feel a woman is something you aren’t…”
Feeling, right?. Definition is whatever we see it as.
Zecarlo, can you tell me what I’m feeling?
Edit: And sill buds, right?
The question in all this is: what’s the point? Who cares what the label is?
If a man decides he wants to present himself as a woman to the world - Caitlyn Jenner is the perfect example - ok, fine, but what is the social benefit of changing his label to “woman”? Why would we care? Why does he?
I get the anti-discrimination push - e.g., you shouldn’t be able to fire someone who is trans. I get it.
But - what is the social utility in going a step further and rearranging our entire (commonsensical) nomenclature for sex/gender - which was never conceived in bad faith and serves perfectly solid purposes - to a new one that accommodates situations that are factually untrue? What sense does it make for us as a society to indulge in fictions that don’t serve a greater purpose?
And if this is based on the principle that an individual deserves to have his/her own “truth” about their gender accepted - e.g., if a man believes he is a woman, we have no right to tell him he is wrong - by logical extension that same courtesy must be extended to “observer’s own truth”, too. If truth is in the eye of the individual, then it must cut both ways - so, even though @Sloth says he’s a man, I’m entitled (under logical extension of this principle) to say, no, my Truth says he’s a woman and I intend to treat him as a woman, and no one can tell me I’m wrong.
In other words, this “individual truth” applies across the board or it doesn’t apply at all - it isn’t postmodernism for me, but not for thee.
So, my point really is - this concept of “individual truth” simply eats itself - a trans woman truly believes he is a woman, and we must respect that, but I truly believe he is a man, and you must respect that too, because no one individual truth trumps the other.
3 Likes
I didn’t say that. I said you believe it has no definition.
Nothing earth-shattering there, but we’re not that point, and I expect we never will be. For thousands of years, the current nomenclature of “male/female with some noted anomalies” has held, and there’s no scientific reason to depart from it.
1 Like
But expressing one truth will intentionally hurt the other person. Does it hurt to simply refer to someone as they wish? I don’t believe in legislating speech of this fashion but why do we need laws to have manners?
1 Like
Your answer?
So we both choose what pronouns to label whoever/whatever with.
1 Like
How one man defines manhood might vary from another. Who am I to tell one or the other he is wrong?
But why do you choose to intentionally hurt someone when using them?