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 -  (10 children)

It’s the total denial that human females are not a biologically distinct group

I was not taking about human females at all in that statement. I was defining a usage of the word "woman" as it is applied to a different group.

When you say that I am "reducing women to sexist tropes" what you are doing is taking your definition of the word and applying my description of how an alternate usage is defined as though it is a statement about the group that your definition applies to. This is an easy mistake to make, particularly when the statement that I made has been removed from all context, but if you look at it in context I hope you can see that this is not what I was saying.

To be super clear, I do not believe that all adult human females identify with the social class associated with the female sex (that would actually be a belief that denied trans identities) and I absolutely do recognise that human females are a biologically distinct group. I'm not some science denier.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

What is a woman if not an adult human female, rubber? You previously stated it was a gender and that gender is at least half personal styling. This would be a sexist claim to make so I’m assuming you mean something else now.

Unless you care to retract saying that woman is a gender?

That’s the sexist message deeply rooted in the core of what youve been arguing.

The statement that a woman is a set of feelings and preferences anyone can have, but certainly not a biologically distinct group of people who’s sex has been the source of their oppression. That’s allowed to be referred to according to you but we simply can’t name the distinct biological category because…it hurts the feelings of sexists..

The belief that woman is anything but an adult human female is a sexist belief. Supporting the sexist men and women who claim that gender roles and norms are defining of humans is sexist.

Reducing woman to a group who perform certain culturally approved actions is sexism.

I’m not mistaken in seeing the sexism you’ve put forward and word games don’t erase it.

Every definition of woman that includes cultural definitions of gender roles or includes males is a sexist one.

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

I did not previously state that:

gender is at least half personal styling

That's actually something that you said, and that I disagreed with:

https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/9f5a/qt_the_most_damning_contradiction_of_trans/yhjq

Regardless, yes, I am saying that the word "woman" can refer to a gender.

You do not give any explanation in your comment of why you think that these beliefs are sexist. The beliefs you are talking about are about language, they are not statements about a group of people. It is not sexist to recognise that sexism exists and shapes the way that our society treats and categorises people.

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

Denying that gender is made up of personal grooming/styling as modern americanised culture assigns to the respective sexes after claiming gender is in fact partly personal presentation was never any sort of meaning, definition, or explanation.

Please tell me, what is a woman if not an adult human female, and what is the term to refer to adult human females?

If woman is a gender, it is not adult human females. So either there is no word for adult human females, or the word woman means effectively nothing because it can be used to refer to multiple contradictory things.

Is woman a feeling? It’s sexist to say that the word that has exclusively referred to adult human females actually refers to a feeling men have.

The fact that you say you cannot see anything sexist about that is disturbing to me. Like, you keep banging on about semantics but you see nothing wrong with adult human females having no langauge to refer to themselves? No word to name the basis upon which we are oppressed?

It seems as though you want to repeat your semantic word salad at us without entertaining what any of our objections are actually about.

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

I never once claimed that gender was partly personal presentation. As I previously clarified, when I mentioned presentation I was referring to things that could indicate a person's gender to another person, not to gender itself.

Please tell me, what is a woman if not an adult human female

This is where this discussion started. I'm not interested in getting caught in an infinite loop, you can go back and read my earlier response.

and what is the term to refer to adult human females?

"Woman" is one, in some contexts. Another is "adult human female", which seems to be serving you perfectly well here.

If woman is a gender, it is not adult human females.

The word (like most words) has multiple meanings depending on context.

It’s sexist to say that the word that has exclusively referred to adult human females actually refers to a feeling men have

This is not something I have said, but even if it was - It is not sexism to describe a sexist system.

Like, you keep banging on about semantics but you see nothing wrong with adult human females having no langauge to refer to themselves? No word to name the basis upon which we are oppressed?

"Adult human females" is language that adult human females can use to refer to themselves. The basis on which they are oppressed is the basis of sex. Regardless though, if you see this as a problem, it's not one that I can solve. I have no power to change language.

It seems as though you want to repeat your semantic word salad at us without entertaining what any of our objections are actually about.

This is a discussion about semantics. I'm sorry if it seems like a "word salad" to you but semantics can get that way. What are your objections actually about? Please tell me.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If you can’t see how it’s sexist to believe that woman is a feeling a man can have or a display a man can make, you aren’t going to see the sexism however it’s illustrated.

You have in essence said woman does not refer to a person, but a presentation a person may have, a feeling a person may have, or a set of social expectations. You have divorced woman from any meaning it had in order to fit the square peg into the round hole of catering to male feelings.

If this is just a system some incorrect people use, why do you keep speaking as though it’s correct and sensible? What other nouns do you think are totally context dependent and may mean opposing things, like a man with skirts and alleged feelings or an adult human female supposedly both share the name woman.

You have no power to change he la gauge but have spent days arguing that woman means what you say it does and not the majority of English speakers understand it to mean. Clearly you do feel you have some power to define the word over us, or you wouldn’t make claims that infer we aren’t women (eg womanhood is an identity and not a sex based experience means gc who do not entertain notions about gender are not women because they don’t have woman gender identity.)

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

If you can’t see how it’s sexist to believe that woman is a feeling a man can have or a display a man can make, you aren’t going to see the sexism however it’s illustrated.

I can't. I see sexism every day, but I can't see that a definition can be sexist. Definitions describe, they don't dictate.

If this is just a system some incorrect people use, why do you keep speaking as though it’s correct and sensible?

I am not speaking as though it's sensible, I think that gender is regressive and should be abolished. Do not take my description of how words are used as a moral position.

Clearly you do feel you have some power to define the word over us

Again, I can't choose how words are defined. All I have done in this thread is to describe how words are used.

And anyone who considers themself a woman is a woman in my book, as I have also repeatedly said.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

OMG, this is unbelievable. After spending days insisting that the definition of the word woman is not a human being who is adult and female, but rather that the word woman is defined in the peculiar way you personally have decided and decreed it to be defined, you say

I can't choose how words are defined.

Then in true Humpty Dumpty style, in practically the next breath you turn around and say

anyone who considers themself a woman is a woman in my book, as I have also repeatedly said.

Obviously, when you use the phrase "in my book," you must be referring to a niche title of recent vintage such as The Big Book of Gender Woo; Golden Book's Guide to Gender Gibberish; or The Front Hole Monologues (aka Andrea Long Chu's vile Females), not to any estimable, time-honored tome like Dr Johnson's landmark lexicon of the English language, or any other reputable dictionary of English such as the OED or other dictionaries published under the Oxford imprint.

https://public.oed.com/history/

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And the description of woman as a feeling and a display of personal style is sexism. I give up. This is hopeless. I doubt you’d ever see sexism in your life even if it screamed “females are subhuman” right in your face then slapped a little girl, if you so adamantly refuse to acknowledge the sexism you’ve repeatedly typed out here.

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

Right. I'm sure it makes your world view easier to imagine that any "adult human females" who don't share it are just incapable of recognising sexism. It's certainly a convenient out for having to explain why you think my views are sexist.

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

I have explained. Your failure to understand is not any sort of an out.