Tra/qt how is ‘examine your genital preference’ not homosexual conversion therapy?

submitted by HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

You don’t see any issues trying to teach geometry? Everyone should just shrug and say I guess ‘tri’ means any number we want?

Is language still even useful if it cannot communicate specific ideas because it’s all just sounds that mean anything?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

They don’t mean anything, they mean what enough people agree they mean, language is inherently social and evolving.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Which other words have had their meaning become the opposite through group pressure?

Please answer the questions instead of skirting them constantly, masks.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Inflammable for one. Literally for another.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

when was that meaning changed and who demanded it change?

What does inflammable mean other than ‘can burst into flame’?

Inflammable and flammable are synonyms and mean "able to burn" even though they look like opposites. In this case, rather than the prefix in- meaning "not," as it often does, "inflammable" comes from the latin verb inflammare, which means "to cause to catch fire." "Flammable" was coined later from a translation of the latin verb flammare ("to catch fire"), which inflammare is related to.

Literally hasn’t changed meaning..it’s become a colloquial term but the definition is not understood to mean “very” by anyone..

Why do you refuse to directly answer anything i ask you?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I literally just gave you a direct answer. You said which words have moved to opposite meanings. I gave you two.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

When did this change occur? Who made the change?

Do you see any issue teaching geometry if triangle means multiple things? What else has inflammable ever meant?

Do you think language that does not assign a specific meaning to a word is useful?

Also, how many people actually think that woman means actual women as well as anyone who calls themselves one? Why is there not allowed to be any distinction between the two groups when extremely obvious and physically/socially important differences exist between the two groups?

Where is literally defined as meaning something else? Do you think colloquialisms are the same thing as a real definition?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Users of the language make the change. There’s not some grand high arbiter of language. They evolve through use.

Inflammable has accepted meanings as both highly flammable and not flammable evolved through colloquial misuse becoming accepted use. Much like literally now both has accepted meanings as figuratively and actually through coloquial use.

Language is useful if it conveys meaning. It doesn’t need formalization to function. As long as there is a communication with intention and an understanding then language has been achieved.

Also, how many people actually think that woman means actual women as well as anyone who calls themselves one?

Haven’t seen a poll but a statistically significant number I would wager. Why else would we even be having the conversation. Enough include us that you feel the need to shout it down.

Why is there not allowed to be any distinction between the two groups when extremely obvious and physically/socially important differences exist between the two groups?

There is a distinction. That’s the entire reason the “trans/cis” dichotomy is in parlance among trans people. Because we recognize a distinction.

Where is literally defined as meaning something else? Do you think colloquialisms are the same thing as a real definition?

Yes. Because that’s how language works. The dictionary isn’t the end all be all of communication.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Users of the language make the change. There’s not some grand high arbiter of language. They evolve through use.

Then men doesn’t mean what you say it does and transwomen aren’t women.

Inflammable has accepted meanings as both highly flammable and not flammable evolved through colloquial misuse becoming accepted use. Much like literally now both has accepted meanings as figuratively and actually through coloquial use.

Misuse of the language by laymen does not actually mean inflammable means both flammable and not flammable in the lab. Incorrect use of a word, like using woman to refer to a man, is not evolution. It’s obfuscation.

Language is useful if it conveys meaning. It doesn’t need formalization to function. As long as there is a communication with intention and an understanding then language has been achieved.

How can words convey meaning if one word supposedly can mean opposite things?

Haven’t seen a poll but a statistically significant number I would wager. Why else would we even be having the conversation. Enough include us that you feel the need to shout it down.

I’m not shutting it down, I’m using language correctly. A handful of western men do not dictate language to the rest of the world.

There is a distinction. That’s the entire reason the “trans/cis” dichotomy is in parlance among trans people. Because we recognize a distinction.

Cis implies gender identity which is wrong. Transwomen complain that they are othered when identified as trans.

Yes. Because that’s how language works. The dictionary isn’t the end all be all of communication.

It’s a far better guide than a small group of men who demand language become altered for their emotional well-being.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Then men doesn’t mean what you say it does and transwomen aren’t women.

You’re free to believe that and use it that way. It’s horrifically insulting but yeah words have a lot of meanings.

Misuse of the language by laymen does not actually mean inflammable means both flammable and not flammable in the lab. Incorrect use of a word, like using woman to refer to a man, is not evolution. It’s obfuscation.

Life ain’t a lab, colloquial use is still language.

How can words convey meaning if one word supposedly can mean opposite things?

Context, cultural understanding.

I’m not shutting it down, I’m using language correctly. A handful of western men do not dictate language to the rest of the world.

Trans people don’t dictate anything. We have no power. Enough normal people have been convinced that we are who we say we are that they’ve moved on our behalf.

Cis implies gender identity which is wrong.

No it doesn’t. It’s just not trans.

Transwomen complain that they are othered when identified as trans.

Unnecessarily sure. Same as anyone with a characteristic they are ashamed of when it’s brought up unnecessarily.

It’s a far better guide than a small group of men who demand language become altered for their emotional well-being.

It’s not up to a mall group of men writing a dictionary either. It’s common usage that makes meaning.

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

they mean what enough people agree they mean

How many people is enough for changing or keeping the meaning of woman? Women are more than half the population. We clearly outnumber males who claim to be "women" by a large margin. If you actually believed this argument you would have to accept the original meaning of the word woman (and the word man) because it's a tiny part of the population who is pushing this sexist language change. Again this is not a natural evolution of the language.