But Where Are You Really From?

[AuroraSaab]

No-one has the power to define how people use language. You have your definitions, other people may define things differently. You or I have no control over that. You can explain your views, but you can't force others to agree with you. That's the way the world works.

True, but society depends on a shared understanding of what words mean. And sometimes that matters. If I say 'hoover' when I am talking about a vacuum cleaner it doesn't matter that much. If you, Ian, go into hospital for your finger amputating and the surgeon removes your leg because he's decided the definition of 'finger' has been expanded to include 'leg', I would imagine you'd be more interested in the importance of certain words and the consequences of redefining them.

All I'm seeing here is blokes happily waving away the word women use to exclusively describe themselves because it doesn't affect them.

Presumably you're happy enough with Rachel Dolezal describing herself as black too?

 

[Rusty Nails]

I loves words, I do. I try to use them every day, even ones I don't understand.

I know a ditty nutty as a fruitcake
Goofy as a goon and silly as a loon
Some call it pretty, others call it crazy
But they all sing this tune:
Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?
Yes! Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?
If the words sound queer and funny to your ear, a little bit jumbled and jivey
Sing "Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy"
Oh! Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you-oo?
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Once again you ignore the fact that they've made exactly the same change to their listing of the word 'man'. Also, I know you don't like it, but the prefix 'cis' does exist and is in use.

I didn't ignore it, as you well know. I said it is less significant. And in terms of its effects, it is. It's still incorrect.

Where are the women asking to be moved to mens prisons because they identify as male? Practically zero, for obvious reasons.
Where are the women who identify as men being recorded as male sex offenders?
Practically zero, for obvious reasons.
Where are the female athletes insisting on enterering the Mens category in sports?
Practically zero, for obvious reasons.

There are no subsets of Woman hence 'cis' is is a nonsense term. Would you call a black person cis black and Rachel Dolezal transblack? Ask your black or Asian friends and colleagues how they feel about you regarding them as 'cis black'.

It would be insulting because it defines the black person in reference to a white person. It defines a person who actually is that thing by reference to someone who isn't that thing. You'd happily do this with 'woman' though because you put the feelings of men who wish they weren't men over the feelings of actual women. And you probably imagine yourself a feminist ally whilst you're doing it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

This thread is laughable really. 35 pages of white people discussing what they think black people should be called, ending up with 4 pages of 'but women shouldn't have an exclusive word for themselves'.

 

[winjim]

I didn't ignore it, as you well know. I said it is less significant. And in terms of its effects, it is. It's still incorrect.

Where are the women asking to be moved to mens prisons because they identify as male? Practically zero, for obvious reasons.
Where are the women who identify as men being recorded as male sex offenders?
Practically zero, for obvious reasons.
Where are the female athletes insisting on enterering the Mens category in sports?
Practically zero, for obvious reasons.

There are no subsets of Woman hence 'cis' is is a nonsense term. Would you call a black person cis black and Rachel Dolezal transblack? Ask your black or Asian friends and colleagues how they feel about you regarding them as 'cis black'.

It would be insulting because it defines the black person in reference to a white person. It defines a person who actually is that thing by reference to someone who isn't that thing. You'd happily do this with 'woman' though because you put the feelings of men who wish they weren't men over the feelings of actual women. And you probably imagine yourself a feminist ally whilst you're doing it.

You said 'is it just women...?'. You were deliberately and disingenuously ignoring men.

Also, if words can't change meaning then there's not even a word for 'male person' as 'man' was originally gender neutral.

 

[Unkraut]

As if Lady Whatsername has ever been on the Clapham Omnibus.

I happen to know that she has. As she got on she said to the driver "Take me to 17 The Mews, Kensington, please".

 

[Unkraut]

We're learning something about German technology.

Yes you are! There's many a true word spoken in jest.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm not ignoring men. I'm saying that the effect of redefining the word 'men' to include women has little practical impact. It doesn't because there are no women pushing their way into the Men's category of anything. The fact that you haven't noticed that the detrimental effects of redefining what male and female means fall squarely onto women suggests you either haven't bothered to find out about the effects, or you don't care.

Do you mean 'man' as in Mankind? One giant leapt for Man ... etc? That's not gender neutral. That's simply a historic use of the term 'man' for everybody. Are you seriously saying there weren't also distinct words for male and female that were used alongside words like Mankind?

 

[Ian H]

True, but society depends on a shared understanding of what words mean. And sometimes that matters. If I say 'hoover' when I am talking about a vacuum cleaner it doesn't matter that much. If you, Ian, go into hospital for your finger amputating and the surgeon removes your leg because he's decided the definition of 'finger' has been expanded to include 'leg', I would imagine you'd be more interested in the importance of certain words and the consequences of redefining them.

Statements of the bleedin' obvious.

All I'm seeing here is blokes happily waving away the word women use to exclusively describe themselves because it doesn't affect them.

Presumably you're happy enough with Rachel Dolezal describing herself as black too?

All you're seeing is just what you want to see. I haven't voiced an opinion on either of these subjects.

 

[icowden]

They don't change material reality though. Gravity existed before there was a word for it. There are 2 distinct sexes and that remains so, regardless of how a small minority insist on trying to expand the definition. And I would hardly say that a definition of 'woman' which includes men is currently in common usage.

Whilst I agree with the tenet of what you are saying there aren't two distinct sexes. If we take the vast majority of humans then yes, they fall into two sexes XY and XX, but there is an area where a very small percentage of people have variant chromosomal bases which makes them difficult to characterise.

Another interesting linguistic curiosity is that "man" didn't always mean what we now say it means. The reason we have words like "mankind" for example is not because we men are in charge, dominant etc. If you go back, the word "man" just meant a human person. People were werman or wifman. Eventually the wer was dropped from men and the man from wife, and the variant wo-man came into being.

For me, the broader question is not about words or chromosomes, but in ensuring that women's rights are not eroded because we have a small group of people shouting loudly that the world must change to accommodate them. More disturbing is the notion that we cannot discuss or have conversation about it.

 

[winjim]

For me, the broader question is not about words or chromosomes, but in ensuring that women's rights are not eroded because we have a small group of people shouting loudly that the world must change to accommodate them.

Erm...

 

[AuroraSaab]

Presumably you mean people who have dsd's, aka intersex people. They are still male or female. They are not a third sex or no sex.

Werman and wifman? So 2 exclusive words that referred to the 2 specific sexes then.

Womens oppression is based on their sexed bodies not a feeling in your head so in the end it does mostly come down to biology.

 

[newfhouse]

Show me where I've mentioned wanting to live in France, people aren't usually shy of quoting others on here.

FFS, you are a lazy reader, aren’t you?

 

[Deleted member 28]

FFS, you are a lazy reader, aren’t you?

How easy would it be to quote me, prove yourself right and make me look foolish?

I'm sure you would jump at the chance if you could, so once again where have I said I like France particularly?

 

[newfhouse]

How easy would it be to quote me, prove yourself right and make me look foolish?

I'm sure you would jump at the chance if you could, so once again where have I said I like France particularly?

“and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth.”