QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology

submitted by Chronicity from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

So white and yellow have meanings that are shared

I'm not sure how you got this from what I said. I would argue that no word has a shared meaning between any two people, but there can be more or less overlap between people's understanding.

Words are neither defined "personally", nor for the purpose of communication. Definitions simply do their best to describe the prevailing trends in how a word is used.

What is the alternative that you are suggesting? Where do words get their meaning if not from the people who use them?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Lmao so nobody shares a meaning of the word dog, or yellow, or knife, we just all sort of overlap in opinions? That’s the biggest steamiest pile of shit I’ve seen this week.

Words are mere suggestions of ideas lmao, I beg you to reconsider this silliness.

Imagine what would happen in a hospital if clear definitions weren’t something humans have. Saline probably suggests some amount of salt in water never mind if it’s a cup of table salt dissolved in a bucket of mop water.

150milligrams and 150 grams are similar and often mixed up by those who rarely use such measurements. Sure everyone died on the icu cause morphine prefers precision but that’s just how words are.

“No, no, I didn’t hit your dog with my car I define that as nudging him gently.”

If this isn’t a joke you’ve made, I think the divide in your cognitive dissonance must make the Mariana’s trench look like a crack in a plate.

Think about this critically for a few minutes, what would the world look like if things other than gender identity were defined this way.

How would the legal system work? Medicine? Money? Food service, mining, production floors?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What way do you think language works if not this way?

You asking what the world would look like if this is the case is a bit baffling to me. So far as I'm concerned this is the case, and the world is how it is.

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

Because I’m allowing myself to think about the scenario instead of trying to make language conform to a modern invention like gender identity.

If words have no definition and merely refer to any object, phenomena, or idea that any individual might apply a word to, how the fuck are you reading this?

Do you really think that amoxicillin is not a definitively defined chemical? That bovines are categorised by opinions had by people who have never seen a cow irl?

I doubt that very much. Claiming the world actually totally does follow your preferred model without giving any example, whilst using the language to communicate specific ideas using specific words to do so just looks beyond daft.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Can you please answer my question? How do you think language works if what I have suggested is "beyond daft"?

If words have no definition

I did not say that words have no definition. Definitions are what we use to describe the way that words are used.

how the fuck are you reading this?

I have no problem reading this because you and I have understanding's of most words that overlap to the extent that, in almost all cases, the differences that do exist don't matter.

Do you really think that amoxicillin is not a definitively defined chemical?

No, I'm sure it is definitively defined. That definition just does not (and cannot) account for the fact that there will be nuance in the meaning that each person takes away from the word.

That bovines are categorised by opinions had by people who have never seen a cow irl?

Why do you think that I would think this? I'm curious how you're interpreting what I'm saying here if it seems so strange and outlandish to you.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Words are specific noises we make to communicate a specific idea, object, or phenomena.

The word kangaroo would not mean wallaby to taxonomists even if every tourist and cityboy in australia thought it did. Those people would simply be incorrect.

The word kangaroo refers to one animal. Incorrect use did not turn the wallabies into kangaroos, it did not reorganise how they are taxonomically catalogued, a bunch of people are just wrong.

I think that’s what you think because that is what you’ve described and that is how you have claimed woman can refer to anyone except exclusively adult human females. I think you think that because the words you use communicate that idea.

Why is amoxicillin defined according to something other than feelings but the adult human female has no name?

What nuance do you claim to see in the word Amoxicillin?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The word kangaroo would not mean wallaby to taxonomists even if every tourist and cityboy in australia thought it did. Those people would simply be incorrect.

How are you deciding who is correct here? Where did the "correct" definition come from if not how the word is used?

I think that’s what you think because that is what you’ve described

I've not described thinking that things are categorised by people with no knowledge of the thing. I don't know where that came from tbh

that is how you have claimed woman can refer to anyone except exclusively adult human females

That is not a claim I ever made. I have both provided a description of the word "woman" which is not in any way exclusive of adult human females and acknowledged the alternate usage of the word which uses it to refer solely to members of that group.

Like... How am I supposed to engage with you if you're going to completely make up nonsense like this?

Why is amoxicillin defined according to something other than feelings but the adult human female has no name?

I don't know, I don't decide how words are defined any more than you do.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Ahahaha holy shit lol.

I didn’t decide what a kangaroo is. That’s the point. The word has used to refer to that animal before I was born. When new Australians are born, they see kangaroos and get told “that’s a kangaroo”. Aboriginal Australians agreed with each other that kangaroo meant kangaroo and shared that knowledge. The definition came from census initially but it is not what defines the object.

If the understanding defined the object as you have said, nothing means anything. Woman could refer to a car model or a dude or a cup of coffee.

A shared understanding that this kind of animal is called that name. Kangaroo means kangaroo. Wallaby means wallaby. A disagreement from a few who prefer to misuse the accepted understanding of the term wouldn’t change the taxonomic differences and make the animals any more similar, wouldn’t change the language used by biologists, zoologists, veterinarians, or the general public.

But a few men disagreeing that woman refers to adult human females supposedly makes the word woman take on new meaning…because…why?

A definition that’s not exclusive of the exact animal it’s defining is…useless. Having an alternate usage of the word woman that refers to human males is useless. The sex of the adult human is what is being defined by use of man or woman for the majority of English speakers and has historically done so right up until a few adult human males took umbrage at this.

The ire of a statistically almost nonexistent group of people is a strange motivation for all English speakers to no longer use words to differentiate the sex of humans.

You have just claimed that the English language works as you described, and that you don’t believe that anyone shares the same meaning of a word, so idk why you’re now saying you don’t know why the rules you claimed exist are applied? Righto.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

When new Australians are born, they see kangaroos and get told “that’s a kangaroo”.

So if a kid was born today and saw a wallaby and was told "that's a kangaroo", they would then be right to call wallabies kangaroos?

I'm not particularly invested in this discussion of whether a particular word is "useful". If a word is not useful it will fall out of use. If it doesn't, then it must be useful.

The sex of the adult human is what is being defined by use of man or woman for the majority of English speakers and has historically done so right up until a few adult human males took umbrage at this.

On this point I disagree. I don't think that people use the word "woman" to refer to sex in most contexts. Sex just isn't relevant to most situations that the word is used in.

You have just claimed that the English language works as you described

I've said that that's how I understand it, in perfectly aware that I may be wrong

so idk why you’re now saying you don’t know why the rules you claimed exist are applied?

Why would I?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, because that’s wrong. Just like when someone says an adult human male is a woman, they are wrong.

Language exists to facilitate communication. A word that is not useful is just a noise. It refers to nothing in particular. If you think the usefulness of language is irrelevant then perhaps you shouldn’t be arguing about how and why words are defined.

Why would you be consistent and be claiming that words are in fact defined how you understand them to be? Gee, idk.