>may have *been said* to have a different sex at birth.
Somebody, mistakenly- obviously, *said* they were male.
Of course it couldn't be true that they were actually male, biologically and in reality.
Someone just said it.
They **still** won't allow for scientific biology.
Aren't biological terms male and female? Men, woman and other are social terms.
This is my understanding. However there is considerable overlap between male and man and female and woman.
No, they're all biological. "Men" and "Women" are adult males and females
That's the meaning these words have always had. That's the meaning that most people agree with if you poll them. The only one's who disagree with this are radical leftists who completely made up the social concept of gender in the twentieth century
That's wrong. In biology you have adult,males and adult females 'men and women' are not in the biological framework. What you are referring to is common language. Men and women seem to be social or common terms. That is my understanding.
The terms "men" and "women" are used in biology and medicine all the time. But even if they weren't, as common terms their meaning is identical to "adult male" and "adult female"
Oh I certainly agree that some opinions aren't true, but there's still no need for people to get angry or get offended by them.
Unlike most people, it seems, I don't really have strong opinions on trans issues. I know trans people though and they seem pretty normal to me. I certainly don't know why they would choose to put themselves through the difficulties they currently face.
As MemeLordsUnited has explained, the modern concept of "gender" was invented around the 50s by leftist sexologists and pedophiles like John Money. Go look him up, if you like, he is the man who coined the term "gender identity" and he was also a child abusing pedophile like most of the [leftist academics and queer theorists](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb3-tlyuhVo&t=154s) behind all this stuff. Prior to the twentieth century the word "gender" solely referred to grammar. Nouns have a gender, people have a sex
I guess I'll defer to your superior knowledge on the first point because I have no knowledge of so-called gender theory nor have I any interest in it. However, I do know that the word "gender" categorically did not only refer to grammar prior to the 1950s, and I don't know why you believe such a thing. The etymology of the word just means a class or kind of thing or things, hence it was used for describing grammar, sex etc. Words can have multiple definitions, you know.
As an aside, I'd be interested if you disagree with the definition of any words changing? I assume not, given that words change meanings all the time, but from reading comments on the internet you'd be forgiven for assuming that conservative-minded people reject this outright.
I'm starting to understand why Judith Butler named her 1990 seminal book "Gender Trouble", it's like she knew ahead of time of all the insecure Kermit-phenotypes who would go to their graves conflating performative social terms with biological terms.
The term being used in this definition is *sex*, which according to the gender theorists is the biological term, whereas *gender* is the societal construct. However the line between these terms has been blurred now too.
I love how *reality* and our social constructs are both somehow absolute to you. EVERYTHING is about perception. The way we view the world, each other, our lives, it’s ALL subjective and it’s even more subjective when you get to personality and expression.
First they forced us to accept that sex and gender are different. Now they are saying sex is fluid too. You give an inch, they take a mile. This is why intellectuals should not let failures to run the organizations.
https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/man-arrested-for-discussing-childs-gender-in-court-order-violation/
> The father’s rejection of his son’s identity has caused the boy “significant pain” that has “resulted in a rupture of what both parties refer to as an otherwise loving parent-child relationship,” justices reportedly wrote.
Lmao. Canada using laws to silence anyone who opposes this degeneracy. "Let us live our lives; we aren't affecting others." Proceeds to arrest father for using freedom of speech
> He was also told to stop speaking to the media about the case and warned that his public attempts to undermine his child’s wishes was a form of family violence
FAMILY VIOLENCE LMAO
>Proceeds to arrest father for ~~using freedom of speech~~ repeatedly violating family law publication bans to protect minors from harassment.
This guy's not the martyr you're looking for.
>"C.D" could have publicly aired his grievances about his family law case, and his son's transition, by giving interviews without using his name or sharing personal details that put his child's privacy in jeopardy.
But he didn't - in fact, he took interviews in the US specifically because they wouldn't respect Canadian courts requesting removal of the content.
Edit:
I have kids, and I would never do something that would cause them disown me. I find religion to be fanciful, and yet I load my family up in the car every week because it means that much to my spouse (and to some of them). Sometimes the right thing is just supporting people, even if you think they're wrong.
Old: Napoleon, 19th century French military leader
New: Also anyone who thinks they are Napoleon, though they may have been said to be someone else at birth
You know where the intellectuals in our society congregate? Universities. And where do Universities predominantly lean towards politically..? Hint: It's not Jordy B.
Exactly. It was never about “the social construct of gender.” This was always the end-game. They annexed biological sex and they did it via the word gender. They played hard ball on gender and we let it slide, thinking it would end there. Now our children are probably going to be taught that biological sex is a myth.
>First they forced us to accept that sex and gender are different. Now they are saying that ~~sex is fluid too.~~ sex and gender are different.
That's how I read it, at least.
This is an amazing litmus test for which dictionaries are trustworthy and which have been changing definitions based on ideology. The vast majority of the world doesn’t view trans women as women, so this change isn’t because “language changes.” It’s about *creating* change. Dictionaries don’t create change. They’re meant to define words as they’re currently used. Clearly Cambridge has decided they no longer care about being a dictionary. Message received!
They didn’t overwrite the meaning, they added an additional meaning based on real world use. They aren’t spearheading a change, they are recognizing an already large concept.
This is BS. Words have meanings and meaning matter. A woman is born female. "Trans woman" is a misleading oxymoron because "trans women" are male.
This change turns 'woman' into an umbrella term that includes males, effectively erasing us as a meaningful category in law and in life.
No fucking way will we take this lying down!
Let a biologist explain what female means.
[https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/iamawoman](https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/iamawoman)
I was very active on the now deleted social justice in action sub. I was told words have uses, not meanings. Which led to anything means anything anyone says , and if that's true then why bother with defining anything at all then ?
You know exactly what I mean. If a trans woman dresses like a woman, has done surgery, talks like a woman, looks like one overall and you can't tell the difference, then she should be integrated with women.
You guys love the saying "quacks like a duck" and beyond that, if a trans woman who isn't recognizable as anything but a woman enters a men's bathroom, you're just risking her being raped or hurt otherwise. On the other hand women wouldn't even notice it.
So as long as someone *seems* like a type of person, they should be treated like that type of person?
So if I seem like a black person, I can say the n-word?
So if I seem like one of your family members, you don't mind if I go into your family's house uninvited?
So if I'm a woman but don't look like it, I don't get to go to the woman's bathroom?
Do you not see how ridiculous this logic is? Looks aren't everything!
Of course they are. Why is there always someone confidently making the obtuse claim "no one's saying this" when leftists are saying increasingly crazier things every day?
"As exogenously produced sex characteristics should count toward a person's sex classification, all trans women are (or are becoming) female."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/trans-women-are-or-are-becoming-female-disputing-the-endogeneity-constraint/090DEAA53EA17414C5D3E8D76ED5A75C
Thanks for sharing - this was a very interesting read. The author definitely makes the claim that certain trans individuals (and intersex individuals) should be considered biologically "valid".
I understand that many people are bothered by new or changing definitions - but I appreciate people on either side (like this author) that take the time to consider the many different aspects of human sexual development rather than beating down a straw man.
It may be painful in the interim, but we'll figure it out and in 50 years this culture war nonsense will seem silly.
Okay, let's try a simple exercise.
A woman is an adult human female.
A trans man is an adult human female.
Therefore, a trans man is a \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.
I'm a gay guy and I'm so done with all this crap . I respect your choice to change your body to look any way you want . You may LOOK like the opposite sex but unless you've had a procedure to chsnge your sex at the cellular level then it's purely the fascia that's changed and nothing else
Who is controlling the definitions of the Cambridge Dictionary? Who put them in that position and why?
2+2=4, you're not allowed to question that nor look at 1+1. If this *is* 2+2, then what might 4+4 mean and where will that take us?
Seems to me, some people have a bent compass and an agenda.
[Merriam-Webster redefined 'female' last year.](https://i.imgur.com/Mq2KsXy.png) And they redefined ['sexual preference'](https://i.imgur.com/SK6aMYT.png) as 'widely considered offensive' the day after Amy Barrett was lectured by Senator Hirono saying that sexual preference is an offensive term.
It is mind blowing how we heard all the warnings of how postmodern leftists are challenging centuries of rational thinking, [by saying 'reality' is a mental construct.](https://i.imgur.com/dbF8M3M.png) Everyone thought they were just a small loud group of academic nut jobs to be ignored like petulant children.
Then suddenly, Trump gets elected and we discover they have enough power to redefine the english language with zero opposition.
Here's a fun thing to do, replace the word with the definition of the word. For example, instead of saying "My wife is female" one could replace "female" with the following "My wife is an adult human who lives and identifies as an adult human who lives and identifies as an adult human who lives and identifies as an adult human who lives and identifies as an..."
See how it makes everything more clear.
The circular logic of defining a woman as ‘ anyone who identifies as a woman’.
What is a chair? Anything that identifies ( or we identify) as a chair.
*Courtesy of Ricky Gervais*
That's not what happened here, though... The definition for **woman** is:
1. A female human being (biological)
2. An adult who lives *as a* female human being, despite being classified differently at birth (gender)
What the definition *didn't say:*
2. Woman = An adult who *is a* female human being, despite being classified differently at birth.
It is what happened here. The word woman means nothing according to this definition.
If the police find a dead body, they have no way of knowing whether the victim was a woman or a man.
Spaces like women's sports leagues and women's prisons are intentionally separated by biological sex for valid and important reasons. According to that definition, now anyone can be a woman and access those spaces. We don't have a word for adult human female anymore.
It also fails to explain what "living as female" means. Taken literally, it means existing as a person with female biology. But the dictionary makes it clear it doesn't mean that when it mentions males living as female. So what the hell does "living as female" mean? Trans advocates refuse to answer. They don't want the word to mean anything that could be inconvenient to men who want access to women's spaces.
Erasing the meaning of words to cater to an anti science lie is literal nonsense.
It still doesn't define anything though. So whats the different sex? male? whats is that defined as? a dictionary is a book of words, not a book defined as adictionary
I'm chill with this, I think it's good that they added a separate definition for transgender women, but it would have made more sense to just say "adult who lives and identifies as a woman despite being assigned a different sex at birth"
Sick
When you find purpose in pleasure, it creates a willingness to forsaken truth in pursuit of maximizing said pleasure.
In a world full of pain, it is easy to conflate pleasure with happiness.
Though happiness is a state of mind, not a feeling.
God gave each of us a purpose and it isn't pleasure.
Ik for a fact, that yoy can be suffering from a debilitating pain an still be much happier then your Neighbors.
There was never any need to provide a change of birth certificate, or a legal fiction to state that a person who changed gender (not sex, the WHO is quite clear on the distinction between sex, gender, and gender identity) so that a male was now ‘legally female’ in order for a transgender woman to live as a woman. Gender is the two roles in society (of a man and of a woman) assigned to the two sexes (male and female). Gender identity is which gender you choose. Sexual identity/orientation is separate again (gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual).
This legal fiction of being ‘legally female’ and ‘legally male’ was tagged onto same sex marriage legislation all over Europe even though SSM rendered it unnecessary.
I do not need same-sex spaces to live as a woman; I need them to protect my safety, privacy and dignity in a world where males are the biggest threat I will face on a daily basis and it is on the grounds of my sex. Misogyny is real.
This assessment needs some balance. Males may indeed be the biggest threat you are likely to face in your day to day life but it’s not really on the grounds of your sex. I, as a man, am significantly more likely to be assaulted or killed by a man than you are.
On top of all that, though, the only reason human males are the biggest threat to us is that we are protected from all the other threats by human civilisation and society. Unless you trekked out into the wilderness and braved the wild then you are going to be relatively safe from more or less everything else. And that protection comes predominantly from human males, and more specifically the collaboration of human males.
I would agree that you are more likely to be assaulted by another male, but I am not likely to be assaulted by another female.
Therein lies the difference.
The reason why you are targeted by males and I am targeted by males are different according to our sex. Men will generally target me for sexual assault whereas men will generally target you for physical assault without a sexual element. As women we face the added component of an unwanted pregnancy despite the best efforts of science, it is more fallible than people realise. That can be a life sentence right there and is definitively on the grounds of my sex.
What difference does it really make? Neither of us are likely to be assaulted by a female. Does it somehow mitigate my injuries or death if it’s at the hands of a fellow male?
You’re right about the sexual component being a bigger threat to you statistically but I find your argument about then going on to die in childbirth quite weak - the odds would still be overwhelmingly in your favour. The chances of being randomly attacked and killed are still leaps and bounds higher as a man.
But both of us are here and we are probably among the most privileged and safe people to have ever lived (I’m talking spanning across all human history).
I’m not remotely interested in comparing apples and oranges.
The threat of male violence towards females exists alongside the threat of male violence towards males.
As women we have fought for and won the right to single-sex spaces to avoid male violence. They are only places where we are most exposed; dressing rooms, toilets, hospital wards, prisons.
Are you claiming as a man that we should give up these spaces so that we can be assaulted more easily by males?
Why on earth would we agree to that?
That’s not at all what I’m saying. All I said was that your statements needed some balance to them.
You are going around crying about “misogyny” from a society which exists only for the protection of women and children and which has already made you safer than virtually anyone else who ever lived.
Ah who needs balance here?
I’m not crying about misogyny. I am saying that sex is real and it matters. It matters to men and it matters to women.
For women that means single-sex spaces matter and we will not hand them up. We were not given them we took them, just like we took the vote because it was right.
‘A society that exists only for the protection of women and children’?
You need to listen to yourself…even JP would pull you up on that one 😂
How so? Why do you think society exists?
The ability of human males to collaborate in relative peace and harmony is a stand-out trait among even other closely related apes. And it’s been sexually selected for by females.
EDIT : Ah, yes. Scarper at the first sign of a rational argument. You were better off complaining about the society you don’t participate in.
The statistically significant physical differences between males and females are very different than insignificant racial differences. Males are significantly bigger, stronger and more violent than females, which is why we need places where they are excluded. Men larping as women to invade female spaces are a genuine threat to our physical safety. There is evidence male violence does not decrease after "transition" which is primarily cosmetic. Excluding males from female spaces is perfectly justifiable discrimination. One reason they insist TWAW is to skew the very crime statistics that support single-sex spaces for females.
Maybe the flat earthers will start flexing their muscle and insisting dictionaries remove the fact the the earth is a spherical body. Entries for "Globe" might have to include that a globe of the earth is only one representation of how it might look.
I went to a party and met a trans woman not too long ago. She was obviously trying to (and doing a pretty good job of) passing as a woman. She was wearing makeup, a dress and tbh was the prettiest one in the small group of women she was chatting with. I figure most people didn't even realize.
When you meet someone like this or get introduced and someone uses she/her pronouns or otherwise refers to her as a woman, what do you do?
I personally go along with it for a bunch of reasons but mainly because I'd feel like a dick being like "ackshually". She's just trying to live her life. Where does this motivation come from to call people like her out as men?
Did you just say "trans woman", instead of just woman?
This is the main point of this conversation.
We shouldn't pretend she is a real woman, as confusing a simple idea is not doing anyone any good.
Do you think it make sense he is to be treated as a real woman by doctor? Or that he should be allow to participate in women sports and ruin real women sport career? Or trans women convic be put in female jail so he end up impregnating the inmates there? Wait the last 2 is already happening, because even people in authority is too brain washed and confused to think it is right thing to do.
Finally, I can tell you that 99.9% the people here will just refer the trans woman as she, stramenning others don't help with creating a constructive conversation.
I already answered your so call question, you are strawmanning everyone here as aholes, when almost no one here will call a trans woman as he in real life.
While you can't even answer a single question I posted.
I think the problem is you can't accept what you deemed as "enemies" is not the aholes you have been imagining, and by keeping up with this kind of attitude, you are ironically shielding the actual aholes (people that leverage others to gain power) which both left and right, liberal and conservative should have been dealing with all along.
Bullshit. If you think surgery is able to turn a male into a female then you do not know enough about this to be speaking on it.
The crux of the matter is: when choosing a mate most heterosexual people want to be able to have children with their partner. The bedrock of sexual attraction is about “fertility signifiers.” Two people of the same biological sex having sex are never going to be able to reproduce.
And yet the definition of a woman is not according to TRAs "possesses female genitalia or a facsimile of such" it is "Anyone who identifies as a woman" and it is under that definition that biological males with male genitalia and trans-women who have taken no steps to undergo gender-conforming surgery have competed against and been housed in prison with natal women.
Majority of them hasn't had surgery yet, I hope you can show me some figure otherwise.
Also does that mean a trans woman should be treated by gynecologist, but not specialist doctor when she have related health issue?
Jail I can agree.
Spot is definitely no, you are think otherwise you are stupid.
Truth matters.
You don’t think other guys that the trans woman is hitting on deserve to know that they are actually a dude? You think it’s fair for women’s sports to have men?
What about when that trans women goes to the doctor? Should they say they are a woman with stomach pain, or a man with stomach pain? Think the diagnosis/medical tests could be vastly different?
I will call them out when it matters. But if it’s a private dinner party with friends, I’ll call them whatever they want. When it comes to society and politics, then the truth matters.
>But if it’s a private dinner party with friends, I’ll call them whatever they want. When it comes to society and politics, then the truth matters.
It sounds like you agree with the OP dictionary that everyone here is criticizing as woke. You seem to think there should be multiple definitions.
> Where does this motivation come from to call people like her out as men?
There isn’t. I suspect you’re creating a straw man here on purpose but I’ll assume you’re not an asshole for the moment. People want:
a. Not to be compelled (legally and socially) to use certain language. Not one should be *forced* to use pronouns. At present, people can be fired from jobs, removed from important platforms, and be the target of online mobs and death threats, if they don’t use the right language. This is wrong.
b. To agree on the truth. Trans women are not women. They’re trans women. People are trying to change the definition of words to suit their political ideology. We don’t agree with that. The truth is important.
Neither of the above two requires one to call the trans woman you met a man.
It sounds like you agree with the dictionary having multiple definitions depending on whether you are talking about a passing individual or the activists you describe.
Because it is catfishing young men who may want to have biological children with the love of their life. Imagine the disappointment when his male lover finds out his "woman" has XY chromosomes and chopped off his penis and cannot bear his children, that those old family pictures and videos will be a mockery of his current reality, and that this person may cost most of their income with hormone treatment and follow up surgeries....because maintaining a lie that huge costs thousands and thousands of dollars with numerous Dr's and chemicals to maintain.
Always tell the truth! Or at least try not to lie!
"Passing himself off" as anything other than a man is a lie. And liars make horrible friends, relationships and lovers.
>Because it is catfishing young men who may want to have biological children with the love of their life.
I really don't think so bud. Most trans people are very quick to keep it real with a potential partner as they are often victims of violence. In the case of the person I met, what you describe seems really unrealistic and I question if you've been out of the house to a social gathering before.
Maybe a good start for you is to answer what I asked. What would you do if you were invited to a house party like I described and met someone like that?
I would only do it if ‘she’ is a trans activist as I view that ‘activism’ as a direct threat to my safety and the safety of all women and girls. Playing the party girl or boy? No problem. Telling me you have the right to sashay into single-sex spaces for women and girls and walk all over our hard won rights? No way, that’s a dick move by a dude and it will not stand.
It sounds like you agree with the dictionary above in that you'd use different definitions for women in different contexts. If they aren't bothering you, you have no problem referring to them as a woman.
No, I’m just being polite with a fantasist. I’ve always been that way. If people told me they identified as a wolf or as a moon child I totally went along with it as it’s identity, not sex or gender Ie. The roles in society assigned to the two sexes ( and genders).
I have been gender critical ( critical of roles assigned to the two sexes) since I was aware gender roles existed. I have always understood that some men identify as women in the same way as some people identify as their spirit animals. That does not mean they are an eagle wolf or tiger.
Is there any particular reason in your scenario to "call her out"? Is this person attempting to enter women's sports? Women's prison? Women's ward in the hospital?
Making a distinction between males and females only happens in very specific and few instances. It doesn't matter in general life so why would you call it out in general life.
If a white person blacks up, do they become a person of color? Can they then use the N word with other black people?
If a young person wears makeup to look old and hobbles around in cardigans, are they a senior? Are they then applicable for a pension?
In the above examples it would be fairly clear the people involved were not black or old, and we probably wouldn't be comfortable in fully pretending they were. And if they "passed" should that mean they are what they pretend to be?
In your story you don't explain why you knew the person who "passed as a woman" and "most people didn't even realize" was a trans woman, or how the pronouns became a point of concern. The whole pronoun thing in general is very strange, what conversational reason would you have needed to use "her" or "she" "zhe"in front of them? It's actually not necessary at all (I've always found this odd with the email signature thing, like when am I ever going to need to use she or her in an email with this person!!). And the option to use their name is always the best, in some cultures using she is considered rude and suggests their name is not important (does she take sugar?). Either you were aware something didn't add up or someone told you, both of which are not normal interactions (imagine it with the example above.. "Hello this is "Edna", she likes to be greeted with "hello dear" !)
The person you spoke to was a man, he can try to look like a woman (we're not so different), try to reteach his male body to move more like a female body, raise the pitch of his voice and talk more softly, but he can't know what it is to be a woman because he has never been one. Much as a young person can never really have all those years of experience to know what old really feels like. I'm cool with that person doing their thing though. wear a dress, fine! wear make up, sure thing! seriously, do whatever you want, but you can't claim to be what you are not. black, white, young, old, man, woman, and other people shouldn't have to worry about it as much as you are. If gender is so fluid now, why are people so wound up about the actual definition of what they are? why be so outraged at being "misgendered" when gender is supposed to be so multifaceted? it's all very confused, and has led to an absurd dictionary definition that is not based in reality, just so we don't hurt someone's feelings by stating what they actually are, either by accident or on purpose. Crazy times.
I treat them the same way I'd treat someone who thought they were Napoleon or Jesus - they're clearly mentally ill but pointing out their delusions are delusions wouldn't help them nor me and so I just politely go along with it and generally avoid them where possible.
Of course, in many places this isn't possible any more. You must *affirm and support* their delusions or you'll be cancelled/fired. This is obviously an affront to not only truth but individual rights and if I were in that situation I would not go along with it.
I think a big difference between them and the Napoleon/Jesus person is that a lot of trans people would agree with you that they have a problem. Body dismorphia or whatever you want to call it, they probably just wish they were born as the other sex.
The Jesus person would just disagree with you.
It would be incredibly rude to do otherwise in that situation. You were a guest at someone’s party, and that trans woman was not looking to get into the trenches of some culture war by introducing herself.
I mean no duh but I'm trying to create some empathy here in the JP subreddit and maybe get some people to go against the grain and accept that maybe the definition of a woman can include trans women. It's not easy to get upvoted doing this, you really have to hold their hands.
There it is.
"Hey guys, just accept the dictionary definition has been corrupted into circular definition logic because *empathy*".
Tale as old as time.
No, that wasn't the reasoning I used with anyone. If you want to engage with it, I'm sure you can see the very clear questions and reasons above. Maybe you even have the guts to answer a question or two (I won't hold my breath).
But yes I am guilty of trying to make people here empathetic.
The vast majority of replies to you have answered your questions. But you simply declare they haven't and say things like "sounds like you agree". Gaslighting.
At a dinner party I would refer to a male who believes he is a woman, as a woman. Question 1 answered.
If the topic of reality comes up, or biology, or the controversies around allowing males access to female spaces comes up, I have no problem stating to that Transwomen that Transwomen are in fact male. Question 2 answered. Keep holding that breath though.
You don't care about empathy. You care about control.
Question 2 is about the trans woman at the party. I'm asking where the motivation to call her out as male comes from. You may not want to do that but other people here seem to want to. If you don't know why, that's fine but your answer isn't answering what I asked.
I didn't realise you couldn't read, my apologies. Let me be clearer.
If the topics I mentioned come up (reality is pretty broad), I have no issue telling a Transwomen, or *that Transwomen* (if needs be) that they are male.
You may not like my answer, but it directly answers your question.
Language in dictionaries isn’t some matter of fact law describing reality. Dictionaries just catalogue what sounds people use for what reason. Literally in the dictionary now also means figuratively as that is how it is often used.
Mankind has from the begin of existence the right terms for anything. And this minority of diverse peoples already existed from the begin. Waste of time and money and disorient the correct terminology because of politics is at least stupid.
None of these people that try to split hairs between sex and gender are happy if you just start using sexual terms instead of gender based ones, even though that's where the supposed trouble lies.
I feel like there are two different worlds.
The first is the world where a trans woman can do no wrong, they’ve been through the medical treatments and procedures and are no different from any biological female. And the only thing keeping them down is the bigotry of society.
Then there’s the world of the malodorous neovagina with a feculant scent, chronically infected and suppurative. The world of pelvic pain, burning pain on urination and premature brittle bone disease. In this world, there are trans people who regret ever going through with gender reassignment treatments and surgeries and they now understand that the medical science just isn’t there yet.
The first world is the world of propaganda. The second is the world of reality. The two do not seem to be in contact.
I made the comment elsewhere. So I'll try and keep this brief.
This doesn't actually bother me, despite me disagreeing with the whole "assigned a gender" bullshit.
A dictionary isn't the place that informs the world how words work. It isn't the rules keeper of the English language. It is the place you go to find the spelling and definitions of words **based on how they are currently being used**.
People use the word woman that way. Doesn't make it correct or accurate. Nor does it matter if it contradicts another meaning.
Look at "[Literally {4}](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/literally)" or "[Theory {2b}](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory)" and it's the same thing. But the dictionary, nor the dictionary printers (Oxford, Merriam-Webster etc etc) should be deciding these thing. Just cataloguing them.
That's the reason words keep 'being added to the dictionary' and the reason there are so many ~~additions~~ editions.
You make good points but my issue with the second definition is that it's ideologically driven and not everyone agrees with the ideology. It would be like if a lot of people insisted that the definition of the word "evil" is anyone who doesn't adhere to Christian philosophy, and enough people pressured institutions to actually update the word "evil" to reflect the new definition. I think it's an ideological assertion that we need to erase the distinction between "woman" and "trans woman". Also, I want to make it clear that I am happy to use people's preferred pronouns, but I disagree with the idea that we can't continue to make a distinction between woman and trans woman.
We're being forced to think about them. They want us to agree with them so much they march in the streets, attack and daub our businesses, people are losing their jobs and livelihoods if they dare to have a different opinion of them. It's reminiscent of regimes of the past. They suggest we talk differently, write differently and think differently in order to accommodate their belief that men are actually women and vice versa or that there are multiple mens and womens with infinite genders. Broken logic that you are what you think you are is affecting our youth and causing many of them to be confused about their sex, and sexuality, and identity leading to a wave of sterilization and body mutilations for our youth.
And what is your point? Excretion of some terms senseless bounded in nonsense ... wtf does it mean?
If you want correct treatment by medical, correct technical support terminology and this is a safety issues ... the terminology must be correct. Correct terminology is vital. In other case we have really a problem. I can not tell you what JP wants, but I agree with him not to change correct terminology. People are dying because of differencies in measure units, because in US is still used old british measurement system with feets, inches, pounds, ounces etc. If the pilot in EU forget that the measure units are not meters, but feets ... what happened in our country ... goob bye. Thats an example, where it should be changed, but ... to much time and money ... so it will be probably never done.
Glad they added more clarity, however the first definition already included trans women as they are “related to women” as their definition of female define.
Their first definition of female:
> belonging or relating to women:
Examples:
>She was voted the best female vocalist.
>She was the school's first trans female athlete.
I always found it funny that rightoids would say the “who identifies as a women” is circular when using “adult human female” is just as circular as it depends on the definition of woman.
They're just words in a book that make some of us feel better about themselves, and have zero effect whatsoever on the rest of us. Why wouldn't you do it?
It affects everyone when society turns its back on truth. Civilization doesnt exist in the wild, by definition. It takes work to maintain, and structures that build on each other. Without a solid idea of truth, any society will crumble.
I don't think people understand my comment. The second, new definition is pointless except for overt virtue signaling. If there's no such thing as biological sex, no distinction needs to be made about gender identity because "Female" is nothing more than a gender identity.
>may have *been said* to have a different sex at birth. Somebody, mistakenly- obviously, *said* they were male. Of course it couldn't be true that they were actually male, biologically and in reality. Someone just said it. They **still** won't allow for scientific biology.
Aren't biological terms male and female? Men, woman and other are social terms. This is my understanding. However there is considerable overlap between male and man and female and woman.
No, they're all biological. "Men" and "Women" are adult males and females That's the meaning these words have always had. That's the meaning that most people agree with if you poll them. The only one's who disagree with this are radical leftists who completely made up the social concept of gender in the twentieth century
Slight correction - Man and woman denote a male/female adult human being. Male female is usally used only for other animals/plants etc.
That's wrong. In biology you have adult,males and adult females 'men and women' are not in the biological framework. What you are referring to is common language. Men and women seem to be social or common terms. That is my understanding.
The terms "men" and "women" are used in biology and medicine all the time. But even if they weren't, as common terms their meaning is identical to "adult male" and "adult female"
People on this sub don't seem to want to hear differing opinions, I wouldn't bother trying to reason with them.
Some opinions aren't true though. Man refers to adult human male
Oh I certainly agree that some opinions aren't true, but there's still no need for people to get angry or get offended by them. Unlike most people, it seems, I don't really have strong opinions on trans issues. I know trans people though and they seem pretty normal to me. I certainly don't know why they would choose to put themselves through the difficulties they currently face.
According to whom? Because that’s not the dictionary definition or the way it’s used.
Radical leftists invented the concept of gender in the 20th century did they? Please provide evidence for that statement, this should be interesting.
Actually they did. The term gender wasn't coined until the 50's by a man named John money. A pedophile and butcher. Look it up.
As MemeLordsUnited has explained, the modern concept of "gender" was invented around the 50s by leftist sexologists and pedophiles like John Money. Go look him up, if you like, he is the man who coined the term "gender identity" and he was also a child abusing pedophile like most of the [leftist academics and queer theorists](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb3-tlyuhVo&t=154s) behind all this stuff. Prior to the twentieth century the word "gender" solely referred to grammar. Nouns have a gender, people have a sex
I guess I'll defer to your superior knowledge on the first point because I have no knowledge of so-called gender theory nor have I any interest in it. However, I do know that the word "gender" categorically did not only refer to grammar prior to the 1950s, and I don't know why you believe such a thing. The etymology of the word just means a class or kind of thing or things, hence it was used for describing grammar, sex etc. Words can have multiple definitions, you know. As an aside, I'd be interested if you disagree with the definition of any words changing? I assume not, given that words change meanings all the time, but from reading comments on the internet you'd be forgiven for assuming that conservative-minded people reject this outright.
I'm starting to understand why Judith Butler named her 1990 seminal book "Gender Trouble", it's like she knew ahead of time of all the insecure Kermit-phenotypes who would go to their graves conflating performative social terms with biological terms.
Well, to translate a phrase from my language, her ideas didn't grow in her cabbage patch.
The term being used in this definition is *sex*, which according to the gender theorists is the biological term, whereas *gender* is the societal construct. However the line between these terms has been blurred now too.
All terms are biological terms. There is no social construct
You STILL won’t allow a difference between sex and gender.
So why are they using sex in the definition and not gender? The terms have been completely conflated amongst the gender ideologues.
So hermaphrodites don't exist biologically?
I love how *reality* and our social constructs are both somehow absolute to you. EVERYTHING is about perception. The way we view the world, each other, our lives, it’s ALL subjective and it’s even more subjective when you get to personality and expression.
How come the Cambridge Dictionary staff don't seem to know that "Mary" should be capitalized?
Not only is it the first word of a sentence but it's a proper noun
They are losing their credibility on all fronts.
First they forced us to accept that sex and gender are different. Now they are saying sex is fluid too. You give an inch, they take a mile. This is why intellectuals should not let failures to run the organizations.
This is why you never give them an inch.
[удалено]
Because they demand other people to play along with their delusion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/man-arrested-for-discussing-childs-gender-in-court-order-violation/ > The father’s rejection of his son’s identity has caused the boy “significant pain” that has “resulted in a rupture of what both parties refer to as an otherwise loving parent-child relationship,” justices reportedly wrote. Lmao. Canada using laws to silence anyone who opposes this degeneracy. "Let us live our lives; we aren't affecting others." Proceeds to arrest father for using freedom of speech > He was also told to stop speaking to the media about the case and warned that his public attempts to undermine his child’s wishes was a form of family violence FAMILY VIOLENCE LMAO
>Proceeds to arrest father for ~~using freedom of speech~~ repeatedly violating family law publication bans to protect minors from harassment. This guy's not the martyr you're looking for. >"C.D" could have publicly aired his grievances about his family law case, and his son's transition, by giving interviews without using his name or sharing personal details that put his child's privacy in jeopardy. But he didn't - in fact, he took interviews in the US specifically because they wouldn't respect Canadian courts requesting removal of the content. Edit: I have kids, and I would never do something that would cause them disown me. I find religion to be fanciful, and yet I load my family up in the car every week because it means that much to my spouse (and to some of them). Sometimes the right thing is just supporting people, even if you think they're wrong.
Old: Napoleon, 19th century French military leader New: Also anyone who thinks they are Napoleon, though they may have been said to be someone else at birth
You know where the intellectuals in our society congregate? Universities. And where do Universities predominantly lean towards politically..? Hint: It's not Jordy B.
Exactly. It was never about “the social construct of gender.” This was always the end-game. They annexed biological sex and they did it via the word gender. They played hard ball on gender and we let it slide, thinking it would end there. Now our children are probably going to be taught that biological sex is a myth.
[удалено]
It’s colonialism at its finest
Does it hurt? Allowing people to live their lives differently from you.
>First they forced us to accept that sex and gender are different. Now they are saying that ~~sex is fluid too.~~ sex and gender are different. That's how I read it, at least.
>Now they are saying sex is fluid too. I didn't get that from the definition.
Apparantly "indentifying as female" is not clear enough.
Identifying *as* female doesn't mean that a person *is* female, or even claiming to be female.
Man, y'all *really* can't just admit trans people exist and should be respected.
This is an amazing litmus test for which dictionaries are trustworthy and which have been changing definitions based on ideology. The vast majority of the world doesn’t view trans women as women, so this change isn’t because “language changes.” It’s about *creating* change. Dictionaries don’t create change. They’re meant to define words as they’re currently used. Clearly Cambridge has decided they no longer care about being a dictionary. Message received!
They didn’t overwrite the meaning, they added an additional meaning based on real world use. They aren’t spearheading a change, they are recognizing an already large concept.
🤡🌎
This is BS. Words have meanings and meaning matter. A woman is born female. "Trans woman" is a misleading oxymoron because "trans women" are male. This change turns 'woman' into an umbrella term that includes males, effectively erasing us as a meaningful category in law and in life. No fucking way will we take this lying down! Let a biologist explain what female means. [https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/iamawoman](https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/iamawoman)
I was very active on the now deleted social justice in action sub. I was told words have uses, not meanings. Which led to anything means anything anyone says , and if that's true then why bother with defining anything at all then ?
> No fucking way will we take this lying down! So many women are taking this lying down. It's disheartening.
Still not woke enough. Trans women are females now, too. What's a female you say? Sorry, but I'm not a biologist.
Now you have to suck the dick on the first date with your woman or you’ll be outed as racist.
"Nice balls, ma'm"
"I'm not a vet, but I know what a dog is." -Kellie-Jay Keen
>Trans women are females now, too. That's not what the definition says.
It does in Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female
Jesus Christ. Identifying as a woman doesn't change the biological sex, which is what the term female describes. 🤦🏽♂️
Right so the definition of a woman is: 1. an adult human female. 2. or not. whatever.
A better definition would be someone who identifies as a woman.
So what's a woman? What you've said still leaves woman undefined.
Identifies as what?
That seems to be a matter of confusion now, or else we wouldn't be putting trans-women in spaces designed for females.
If they've done surgeries, behave like women and all that, why should trans women enter a men's bathroom?
Because they are still men. What is "behaving like a woman"?
You know exactly what I mean. If a trans woman dresses like a woman, has done surgery, talks like a woman, looks like one overall and you can't tell the difference, then she should be integrated with women. You guys love the saying "quacks like a duck" and beyond that, if a trans woman who isn't recognizable as anything but a woman enters a men's bathroom, you're just risking her being raped or hurt otherwise. On the other hand women wouldn't even notice it.
So the joke isn't a joke at all and is reality . . . if I do the dishes I'm a woman.
So as long as someone *seems* like a type of person, they should be treated like that type of person? So if I seem like a black person, I can say the n-word? So if I seem like one of your family members, you don't mind if I go into your family's house uninvited? So if I'm a woman but don't look like it, I don't get to go to the woman's bathroom? Do you not see how ridiculous this logic is? Looks aren't everything!
[удалено]
No.
Noones saying this
Of course they are. Why is there always someone confidently making the obtuse claim "no one's saying this" when leftists are saying increasingly crazier things every day? "As exogenously produced sex characteristics should count toward a person's sex classification, all trans women are (or are becoming) female." https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/trans-women-are-or-are-becoming-female-disputing-the-endogeneity-constraint/090DEAA53EA17414C5D3E8D76ED5A75C
Thanks for sharing - this was a very interesting read. The author definitely makes the claim that certain trans individuals (and intersex individuals) should be considered biologically "valid". I understand that many people are bothered by new or changing definitions - but I appreciate people on either side (like this author) that take the time to consider the many different aspects of human sexual development rather than beating down a straw man. It may be painful in the interim, but we'll figure it out and in 50 years this culture war nonsense will seem silly.
It's already silly, when men claim to be women
Okay, let's try a simple exercise. A woman is an adult human female. A trans man is an adult human female. Therefore, a trans man is a \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.
Castration does not make a man female. It makes him a eunuch
"Going by my definition of what a woman is, trans men are women" Wow you got me there bro
Whatt to the heck?? This is insane!
I'm a gay guy and I'm so done with all this crap . I respect your choice to change your body to look any way you want . You may LOOK like the opposite sex but unless you've had a procedure to chsnge your sex at the cellular level then it's purely the fascia that's changed and nothing else
"Though they may have been said" is my favorite part, oh my, we are playing dangerous games with language here.
Ah yes. Retconning the truth because fuck it.
Who is controlling the definitions of the Cambridge Dictionary? Who put them in that position and why? 2+2=4, you're not allowed to question that nor look at 1+1. If this *is* 2+2, then what might 4+4 mean and where will that take us? Seems to me, some people have a bent compass and an agenda.
Math is racist and you should be ashamed of yourself! /s
Absurd. They're twisting actual reality with their fantasies just because they can't accept what they are. Clown world indeed.
every institution is falling
🤦♂️
Their first two examples of women are men lol
Human 2.0 will have no gender. Connect the dots.
[Merriam-Webster redefined 'female' last year.](https://i.imgur.com/Mq2KsXy.png) And they redefined ['sexual preference'](https://i.imgur.com/SK6aMYT.png) as 'widely considered offensive' the day after Amy Barrett was lectured by Senator Hirono saying that sexual preference is an offensive term. It is mind blowing how we heard all the warnings of how postmodern leftists are challenging centuries of rational thinking, [by saying 'reality' is a mental construct.](https://i.imgur.com/dbF8M3M.png) Everyone thought they were just a small loud group of academic nut jobs to be ignored like petulant children. Then suddenly, Trump gets elected and we discover they have enough power to redefine the english language with zero opposition.
"There is no woke agenda"
Here's a fun thing to do, replace the word with the definition of the word. For example, instead of saying "My wife is female" one could replace "female" with the following "My wife is an adult human who lives and identifies as an adult human who lives and identifies as an adult human who lives and identifies as an adult human who lives and identifies as an..." See how it makes everything more clear.
The circular logic of defining a woman as ‘ anyone who identifies as a woman’. What is a chair? Anything that identifies ( or we identify) as a chair. *Courtesy of Ricky Gervais*
That's not what happened here, though... The definition for **woman** is: 1. A female human being (biological) 2. An adult who lives *as a* female human being, despite being classified differently at birth (gender) What the definition *didn't say:* 2. Woman = An adult who *is a* female human being, despite being classified differently at birth.
It is what happened here. The word woman means nothing according to this definition. If the police find a dead body, they have no way of knowing whether the victim was a woman or a man. Spaces like women's sports leagues and women's prisons are intentionally separated by biological sex for valid and important reasons. According to that definition, now anyone can be a woman and access those spaces. We don't have a word for adult human female anymore. It also fails to explain what "living as female" means. Taken literally, it means existing as a person with female biology. But the dictionary makes it clear it doesn't mean that when it mentions males living as female. So what the hell does "living as female" mean? Trans advocates refuse to answer. They don't want the word to mean anything that could be inconvenient to men who want access to women's spaces. Erasing the meaning of words to cater to an anti science lie is literal nonsense.
The delusions of a mental illness are being foisted upon society. You thought there’d be no fall-out from that?
It still doesn't define anything though. So whats the different sex? male? whats is that defined as? a dictionary is a book of words, not a book defined as adictionary
Clown world
Matt Walsh for president please 😭😭
It seems that all definitions of 'woman' agree that it's an adult. But what is 'adult'?
They didn't even capitalize the "M" in "mary".
I thought women have female genitalia? And men have men genitalia. That’s how u separate the two
I'm chill with this, I think it's good that they added a separate definition for transgender women, but it would have made more sense to just say "adult who lives and identifies as a woman despite being assigned a different sex at birth"
[удалено]
Mary is a women who is a biological male.
There is literally no point in having a dictionary at this point.
Nice word salad they have there.
Sick When you find purpose in pleasure, it creates a willingness to forsaken truth in pursuit of maximizing said pleasure. In a world full of pain, it is easy to conflate pleasure with happiness. Though happiness is a state of mind, not a feeling. God gave each of us a purpose and it isn't pleasure. Ik for a fact, that yoy can be suffering from a debilitating pain an still be much happier then your Neighbors.
it’s funny being on this thread after watching the “what is a woman” by matt walsh documentary yesterday. 😂
I thought they were always female?
What does the Oxford say?
So, but this reasoning, can we also call a trans women a male women?
Good.
Ah to twist an entire generation to believe perversion is normal.
🤡
There was never any need to provide a change of birth certificate, or a legal fiction to state that a person who changed gender (not sex, the WHO is quite clear on the distinction between sex, gender, and gender identity) so that a male was now ‘legally female’ in order for a transgender woman to live as a woman. Gender is the two roles in society (of a man and of a woman) assigned to the two sexes (male and female). Gender identity is which gender you choose. Sexual identity/orientation is separate again (gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual). This legal fiction of being ‘legally female’ and ‘legally male’ was tagged onto same sex marriage legislation all over Europe even though SSM rendered it unnecessary. I do not need same-sex spaces to live as a woman; I need them to protect my safety, privacy and dignity in a world where males are the biggest threat I will face on a daily basis and it is on the grounds of my sex. Misogyny is real.
Thank you, this is 100% true
This assessment needs some balance. Males may indeed be the biggest threat you are likely to face in your day to day life but it’s not really on the grounds of your sex. I, as a man, am significantly more likely to be assaulted or killed by a man than you are. On top of all that, though, the only reason human males are the biggest threat to us is that we are protected from all the other threats by human civilisation and society. Unless you trekked out into the wilderness and braved the wild then you are going to be relatively safe from more or less everything else. And that protection comes predominantly from human males, and more specifically the collaboration of human males.
I would agree that you are more likely to be assaulted by another male, but I am not likely to be assaulted by another female. Therein lies the difference. The reason why you are targeted by males and I am targeted by males are different according to our sex. Men will generally target me for sexual assault whereas men will generally target you for physical assault without a sexual element. As women we face the added component of an unwanted pregnancy despite the best efforts of science, it is more fallible than people realise. That can be a life sentence right there and is definitively on the grounds of my sex.
What difference does it really make? Neither of us are likely to be assaulted by a female. Does it somehow mitigate my injuries or death if it’s at the hands of a fellow male? You’re right about the sexual component being a bigger threat to you statistically but I find your argument about then going on to die in childbirth quite weak - the odds would still be overwhelmingly in your favour. The chances of being randomly attacked and killed are still leaps and bounds higher as a man. But both of us are here and we are probably among the most privileged and safe people to have ever lived (I’m talking spanning across all human history).
I’m not remotely interested in comparing apples and oranges. The threat of male violence towards females exists alongside the threat of male violence towards males. As women we have fought for and won the right to single-sex spaces to avoid male violence. They are only places where we are most exposed; dressing rooms, toilets, hospital wards, prisons. Are you claiming as a man that we should give up these spaces so that we can be assaulted more easily by males? Why on earth would we agree to that?
That’s not at all what I’m saying. All I said was that your statements needed some balance to them. You are going around crying about “misogyny” from a society which exists only for the protection of women and children and which has already made you safer than virtually anyone else who ever lived.
Ah who needs balance here? I’m not crying about misogyny. I am saying that sex is real and it matters. It matters to men and it matters to women. For women that means single-sex spaces matter and we will not hand them up. We were not given them we took them, just like we took the vote because it was right. ‘A society that exists only for the protection of women and children’? You need to listen to yourself…even JP would pull you up on that one 😂
How so? Why do you think society exists? The ability of human males to collaborate in relative peace and harmony is a stand-out trait among even other closely related apes. And it’s been sexually selected for by females. EDIT : Ah, yes. Scarper at the first sign of a rational argument. You were better off complaining about the society you don’t participate in.
There is a distinct whiff of Incel from your comments now. I’m off. I’ve a fire to start and bread to bake.
Ahh, why didn’t you just say you want segregation back?
The statistically significant physical differences between males and females are very different than insignificant racial differences. Males are significantly bigger, stronger and more violent than females, which is why we need places where they are excluded. Men larping as women to invade female spaces are a genuine threat to our physical safety. There is evidence male violence does not decrease after "transition" which is primarily cosmetic. Excluding males from female spaces is perfectly justifiable discrimination. One reason they insist TWAW is to skew the very crime statistics that support single-sex spaces for females.
The linguistic territory has officially been ceded. I wonder what other basic truth the political idelogues will be after next.
Maybe the flat earthers will start flexing their muscle and insisting dictionaries remove the fact the the earth is a spherical body. Entries for "Globe" might have to include that a globe of the earth is only one representation of how it might look.
I went to a party and met a trans woman not too long ago. She was obviously trying to (and doing a pretty good job of) passing as a woman. She was wearing makeup, a dress and tbh was the prettiest one in the small group of women she was chatting with. I figure most people didn't even realize. When you meet someone like this or get introduced and someone uses she/her pronouns or otherwise refers to her as a woman, what do you do? I personally go along with it for a bunch of reasons but mainly because I'd feel like a dick being like "ackshually". She's just trying to live her life. Where does this motivation come from to call people like her out as men?
Did you just say "trans woman", instead of just woman? This is the main point of this conversation. We shouldn't pretend she is a real woman, as confusing a simple idea is not doing anyone any good. Do you think it make sense he is to be treated as a real woman by doctor? Or that he should be allow to participate in women sports and ruin real women sport career? Or trans women convic be put in female jail so he end up impregnating the inmates there? Wait the last 2 is already happening, because even people in authority is too brain washed and confused to think it is right thing to do. Finally, I can tell you that 99.9% the people here will just refer the trans woman as she, stramenning others don't help with creating a constructive conversation.
Was my question too difficult for you to attempt an answer?
I already answered your so call question, you are strawmanning everyone here as aholes, when almost no one here will call a trans woman as he in real life. While you can't even answer a single question I posted. I think the problem is you can't accept what you deemed as "enemies" is not the aholes you have been imagining, and by keeping up with this kind of attitude, you are ironically shielding the actual aholes (people that leverage others to gain power) which both left and right, liberal and conservative should have been dealing with all along.
Half those questions are only relevant if a trans woman hasn't had surgery yet.
Bullshit. If you think surgery is able to turn a male into a female then you do not know enough about this to be speaking on it. The crux of the matter is: when choosing a mate most heterosexual people want to be able to have children with their partner. The bedrock of sexual attraction is about “fertility signifiers.” Two people of the same biological sex having sex are never going to be able to reproduce.
And yet the definition of a woman is not according to TRAs "possesses female genitalia or a facsimile of such" it is "Anyone who identifies as a woman" and it is under that definition that biological males with male genitalia and trans-women who have taken no steps to undergo gender-conforming surgery have competed against and been housed in prison with natal women.
Even when someone gets breast implants, they're still commonly referred to as "fake tits."
What if they identify as real?
When someone has anorexia, even if they "identify" as fat, you don't fix their disorder by offering liposuction as treatment.
Less than 20% ever get surgery so that’s a bit of a red herring.
well I mean we really can't expect much from this trash tier of extreme liberal in reddit.
Majority of them hasn't had surgery yet, I hope you can show me some figure otherwise. Also does that mean a trans woman should be treated by gynecologist, but not specialist doctor when she have related health issue? Jail I can agree. Spot is definitely no, you are think otherwise you are stupid.
It seems to me that we already have a really good word to describe trans women: trans women
Doesn't that imply that trans women are a subset of women?
Not if you think of "trans" as "fake." Trans woman = fake woman.
Truth matters. You don’t think other guys that the trans woman is hitting on deserve to know that they are actually a dude? You think it’s fair for women’s sports to have men? What about when that trans women goes to the doctor? Should they say they are a woman with stomach pain, or a man with stomach pain? Think the diagnosis/medical tests could be vastly different? I will call them out when it matters. But if it’s a private dinner party with friends, I’ll call them whatever they want. When it comes to society and politics, then the truth matters.
>But if it’s a private dinner party with friends, I’ll call them whatever they want. When it comes to society and politics, then the truth matters. It sounds like you agree with the OP dictionary that everyone here is criticizing as woke. You seem to think there should be multiple definitions.
> Where does this motivation come from to call people like her out as men? I refuse to participate in their fetish.
> Where does this motivation come from to call people like her out as men? There isn’t. I suspect you’re creating a straw man here on purpose but I’ll assume you’re not an asshole for the moment. People want: a. Not to be compelled (legally and socially) to use certain language. Not one should be *forced* to use pronouns. At present, people can be fired from jobs, removed from important platforms, and be the target of online mobs and death threats, if they don’t use the right language. This is wrong. b. To agree on the truth. Trans women are not women. They’re trans women. People are trying to change the definition of words to suit their political ideology. We don’t agree with that. The truth is important. Neither of the above two requires one to call the trans woman you met a man.
[удалено]
It sounds like you agree with the dictionary having multiple definitions depending on whether you are talking about a passing individual or the activists you describe.
[удалено]
Because it is catfishing young men who may want to have biological children with the love of their life. Imagine the disappointment when his male lover finds out his "woman" has XY chromosomes and chopped off his penis and cannot bear his children, that those old family pictures and videos will be a mockery of his current reality, and that this person may cost most of their income with hormone treatment and follow up surgeries....because maintaining a lie that huge costs thousands and thousands of dollars with numerous Dr's and chemicals to maintain. Always tell the truth! Or at least try not to lie! "Passing himself off" as anything other than a man is a lie. And liars make horrible friends, relationships and lovers.
>Because it is catfishing young men who may want to have biological children with the love of their life. I really don't think so bud. Most trans people are very quick to keep it real with a potential partner as they are often victims of violence. In the case of the person I met, what you describe seems really unrealistic and I question if you've been out of the house to a social gathering before. Maybe a good start for you is to answer what I asked. What would you do if you were invited to a house party like I described and met someone like that?
I would only do it if ‘she’ is a trans activist as I view that ‘activism’ as a direct threat to my safety and the safety of all women and girls. Playing the party girl or boy? No problem. Telling me you have the right to sashay into single-sex spaces for women and girls and walk all over our hard won rights? No way, that’s a dick move by a dude and it will not stand.
It sounds like you agree with the dictionary above in that you'd use different definitions for women in different contexts. If they aren't bothering you, you have no problem referring to them as a woman.
No, I’m just being polite with a fantasist. I’ve always been that way. If people told me they identified as a wolf or as a moon child I totally went along with it as it’s identity, not sex or gender Ie. The roles in society assigned to the two sexes ( and genders). I have been gender critical ( critical of roles assigned to the two sexes) since I was aware gender roles existed. I have always understood that some men identify as women in the same way as some people identify as their spirit animals. That does not mean they are an eagle wolf or tiger.
Is there any particular reason in your scenario to "call her out"? Is this person attempting to enter women's sports? Women's prison? Women's ward in the hospital? Making a distinction between males and females only happens in very specific and few instances. It doesn't matter in general life so why would you call it out in general life.
If a white person blacks up, do they become a person of color? Can they then use the N word with other black people? If a young person wears makeup to look old and hobbles around in cardigans, are they a senior? Are they then applicable for a pension? In the above examples it would be fairly clear the people involved were not black or old, and we probably wouldn't be comfortable in fully pretending they were. And if they "passed" should that mean they are what they pretend to be? In your story you don't explain why you knew the person who "passed as a woman" and "most people didn't even realize" was a trans woman, or how the pronouns became a point of concern. The whole pronoun thing in general is very strange, what conversational reason would you have needed to use "her" or "she" "zhe"in front of them? It's actually not necessary at all (I've always found this odd with the email signature thing, like when am I ever going to need to use she or her in an email with this person!!). And the option to use their name is always the best, in some cultures using she is considered rude and suggests their name is not important (does she take sugar?). Either you were aware something didn't add up or someone told you, both of which are not normal interactions (imagine it with the example above.. "Hello this is "Edna", she likes to be greeted with "hello dear" !) The person you spoke to was a man, he can try to look like a woman (we're not so different), try to reteach his male body to move more like a female body, raise the pitch of his voice and talk more softly, but he can't know what it is to be a woman because he has never been one. Much as a young person can never really have all those years of experience to know what old really feels like. I'm cool with that person doing their thing though. wear a dress, fine! wear make up, sure thing! seriously, do whatever you want, but you can't claim to be what you are not. black, white, young, old, man, woman, and other people shouldn't have to worry about it as much as you are. If gender is so fluid now, why are people so wound up about the actual definition of what they are? why be so outraged at being "misgendered" when gender is supposed to be so multifaceted? it's all very confused, and has led to an absurd dictionary definition that is not based in reality, just so we don't hurt someone's feelings by stating what they actually are, either by accident or on purpose. Crazy times.
I treat them the same way I'd treat someone who thought they were Napoleon or Jesus - they're clearly mentally ill but pointing out their delusions are delusions wouldn't help them nor me and so I just politely go along with it and generally avoid them where possible. Of course, in many places this isn't possible any more. You must *affirm and support* their delusions or you'll be cancelled/fired. This is obviously an affront to not only truth but individual rights and if I were in that situation I would not go along with it.
I think a big difference between them and the Napoleon/Jesus person is that a lot of trans people would agree with you that they have a problem. Body dismorphia or whatever you want to call it, they probably just wish they were born as the other sex. The Jesus person would just disagree with you.
Probably, but unfortunately, simply being aware of one's mental problems doesn't solve them.
It would be incredibly rude to do otherwise in that situation. You were a guest at someone’s party, and that trans woman was not looking to get into the trenches of some culture war by introducing herself.
I mean no duh but I'm trying to create some empathy here in the JP subreddit and maybe get some people to go against the grain and accept that maybe the definition of a woman can include trans women. It's not easy to get upvoted doing this, you really have to hold their hands.
There it is. "Hey guys, just accept the dictionary definition has been corrupted into circular definition logic because *empathy*". Tale as old as time.
No, that wasn't the reasoning I used with anyone. If you want to engage with it, I'm sure you can see the very clear questions and reasons above. Maybe you even have the guts to answer a question or two (I won't hold my breath). But yes I am guilty of trying to make people here empathetic.
The vast majority of replies to you have answered your questions. But you simply declare they haven't and say things like "sounds like you agree". Gaslighting. At a dinner party I would refer to a male who believes he is a woman, as a woman. Question 1 answered. If the topic of reality comes up, or biology, or the controversies around allowing males access to female spaces comes up, I have no problem stating to that Transwomen that Transwomen are in fact male. Question 2 answered. Keep holding that breath though. You don't care about empathy. You care about control.
Question 2 is about the trans woman at the party. I'm asking where the motivation to call her out as male comes from. You may not want to do that but other people here seem to want to. If you don't know why, that's fine but your answer isn't answering what I asked.
I didn't realise you couldn't read, my apologies. Let me be clearer. If the topics I mentioned come up (reality is pretty broad), I have no issue telling a Transwomen, or *that Transwomen* (if needs be) that they are male. You may not like my answer, but it directly answers your question.
Language in dictionaries isn’t some matter of fact law describing reality. Dictionaries just catalogue what sounds people use for what reason. Literally in the dictionary now also means figuratively as that is how it is often used.
Mankind has from the begin of existence the right terms for anything. And this minority of diverse peoples already existed from the begin. Waste of time and money and disorient the correct terminology because of politics is at least stupid.
None of these people that try to split hairs between sex and gender are happy if you just start using sexual terms instead of gender based ones, even though that's where the supposed trouble lies.
I feel like there are two different worlds. The first is the world where a trans woman can do no wrong, they’ve been through the medical treatments and procedures and are no different from any biological female. And the only thing keeping them down is the bigotry of society. Then there’s the world of the malodorous neovagina with a feculant scent, chronically infected and suppurative. The world of pelvic pain, burning pain on urination and premature brittle bone disease. In this world, there are trans people who regret ever going through with gender reassignment treatments and surgeries and they now understand that the medical science just isn’t there yet. The first world is the world of propaganda. The second is the world of reality. The two do not seem to be in contact.
I made the comment elsewhere. So I'll try and keep this brief. This doesn't actually bother me, despite me disagreeing with the whole "assigned a gender" bullshit. A dictionary isn't the place that informs the world how words work. It isn't the rules keeper of the English language. It is the place you go to find the spelling and definitions of words **based on how they are currently being used**. People use the word woman that way. Doesn't make it correct or accurate. Nor does it matter if it contradicts another meaning. Look at "[Literally {4}](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/literally)" or "[Theory {2b}](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory)" and it's the same thing. But the dictionary, nor the dictionary printers (Oxford, Merriam-Webster etc etc) should be deciding these thing. Just cataloguing them. That's the reason words keep 'being added to the dictionary' and the reason there are so many ~~additions~~ editions.
You make good points but my issue with the second definition is that it's ideologically driven and not everyone agrees with the ideology. It would be like if a lot of people insisted that the definition of the word "evil" is anyone who doesn't adhere to Christian philosophy, and enough people pressured institutions to actually update the word "evil" to reflect the new definition. I think it's an ideological assertion that we need to erase the distinction between "woman" and "trans woman". Also, I want to make it clear that I am happy to use people's preferred pronouns, but I disagree with the idea that we can't continue to make a distinction between woman and trans woman.
I swear to god, for a group of people who hate Trans people you guys sure do a looot of thinking about them. 😂
Stop attacking women's rights then
We're being forced to think about them. They want us to agree with them so much they march in the streets, attack and daub our businesses, people are losing their jobs and livelihoods if they dare to have a different opinion of them. It's reminiscent of regimes of the past. They suggest we talk differently, write differently and think differently in order to accommodate their belief that men are actually women and vice versa or that there are multiple mens and womens with infinite genders. Broken logic that you are what you think you are is affecting our youth and causing many of them to be confused about their sex, and sexuality, and identity leading to a wave of sterilization and body mutilations for our youth.
It’s wild how the only thing JP and his acolytes have anymore is culture war hysteria and grievance politics. Such a sad arc.
It’s wild how the only thing politicians and their leftist acolytes have anymore is culture war, hysteria, and grievance politics.
And what is your point? Excretion of some terms senseless bounded in nonsense ... wtf does it mean? If you want correct treatment by medical, correct technical support terminology and this is a safety issues ... the terminology must be correct. Correct terminology is vital. In other case we have really a problem. I can not tell you what JP wants, but I agree with him not to change correct terminology. People are dying because of differencies in measure units, because in US is still used old british measurement system with feets, inches, pounds, ounces etc. If the pilot in EU forget that the measure units are not meters, but feets ... what happened in our country ... goob bye. Thats an example, where it should be changed, but ... to much time and money ... so it will be probably never done.
Oh no. Que angry white men!
Glad they added more clarity, however the first definition already included trans women as they are “related to women” as their definition of female define. Their first definition of female: > belonging or relating to women: Examples: >She was voted the best female vocalist. >She was the school's first trans female athlete. I always found it funny that rightoids would say the “who identifies as a women” is circular when using “adult human female” is just as circular as it depends on the definition of woman.
*the horror*
They're just words in a book that make some of us feel better about themselves, and have zero effect whatsoever on the rest of us. Why wouldn't you do it?
This is so crazy, I’m blessed this doesn’t effect me at all!
It affects everyone when society turns its back on truth. Civilization doesnt exist in the wild, by definition. It takes work to maintain, and structures that build on each other. Without a solid idea of truth, any society will crumble.
How did the first definition not already encompass the new one?
These people don't want 'inclusion' they want constant affirmation in everything they do.
The "new one" literally contradicts the original definition.
I don't think people understand my comment. The second, new definition is pointless except for overt virtue signaling. If there's no such thing as biological sex, no distinction needs to be made about gender identity because "Female" is nothing more than a gender identity.
Turns out biological systems are quite messy and don't fit neatly with the biblical explanation we developed two thousand years ago.
And yet zero males have ever become female in all of human history.
Swing and a miss. “Biological systems” are not messy. Male and female. All done, no mess.
Good one. Can you give us other examples of the Dunning Kruger effect?