4 ms·

I'm not conflating anything. I'm asserting that being a man or a woman is a question of biological sex not a question of gender. You're allowed to disagree but

by slibhb 4y ago

I'm not conflating anything. I'm asserting that being a man or a woman is a question of biological sex not a question of gender. You're allowed to disagree but you've already asserted that my view is hateful and ignorant which was my original complaint.

socialismisok 4y ago
I believe your view is not keeping up with the times. I think as long as you acknowledge there are people who use language to disambiguate sex and gender, but you choose not to use that language, then you are just expressing your opinion. I think it's fair for folks to probe why you choose the language you do, and even to suggest that the reasons you supply might be considered ignorant. We only improve if we all try to understand the reasoning behind each other more.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
  There's this strange perception that anything new must be good and right. Perhaps OPs language isn't keeping up with the times, or maybe the times are just...incorrect.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    I didn't suggest that new was correct, I suggested new exists and we should acknowledge it. I don't use "yeet" as a word, and I find it silly. But nonetheless I'm aware some people do use it, and so it's in my lexicon as a word that I just don't care for. My point is that we cannot deny new usages. We can disagree with them or choose not to use them, but denying them is just never going to work.
    - crackercrews 4y ago
      This completely misses the point. No one here is unaware that people use these terms in new ways. Likewise they are not denying the usage. They are saying the usage is imprecise. It commandeers an existing word. Using that word in the conventional way is portrayed as archaic or bigoted. This is not remotely the same as making up a new word like yeet.
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        I disagree, plenty of people have stated quite the opposite - that there exists one definition only and the other definitions are incorrect. I believe language is descriptive, and therefore definitions follow usage. If there exists new usage in common enough use, then the definition follows that use. And I don't believe the traditional use of a word makes one a bigot by default. I think that there are both bigots and non bigots that use the words traditionally. But this thread is absolutely stock full of people refusing to acknowledge that there might be multiple correct definitions.
        crackercrews 4y ago
        You disagree that a neologism is different from changing the definition of an existing word? Please elaborate on how those two things are not distinguishable.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        No, I disagree that people understand there are two definitions in common use. The parent said that no one disagrees that people use the word in that way. I'd argue that several people in this thread have done so implicitly or explicitly by saying something to the effect of, "man means X and only X".
        crackercrews 4y ago
        Actually, the comment does not talk about that. It just says: > There's this strange perception that anything new must be good and right. Perhaps OPs language isn't keeping up with the times, or maybe the times are just...incorrect. This asserts that newness does not equate with correctness. This implicitly recognizes that there are multiple uses.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        I'm responding specifically to: "No one here is unaware that people use these terms in new ways. Likewise they are not denying the usage." Other places in this post people absolutely do deny the usage.
- chongli 4y ago
  use language to disambiguate That's the ultimate issue here. Different groups of people want to disambiguate some terms and conflate others, and there is not enough overlap between these groups to reach a common ground. At its core is a struggle for power with the meanings of words representing territory to be won or lost. Orwell wrote extensively on this topic and left us with some pretty stern warnings which we as a society continue to ignore. And while everyone fights over this stuff we are ruining the planet and risking catastrophic consequences both environmental and political.
dahdum 4y ago
You're arguing definitions, but ultimately language is use, and use is always changing. You can carry on as you've always had, but some fraction of the public will assume ignorance, some stubbornness, and some malice. It's not really any different than terms for ethnic minorities or those with disabilities over time. How you approach it is up to you, but how people perceive you is up to them.
- slibhb 4y ago
  It's not quite as simple as arguing definitions. My argument is that the categories "man" and "woman" really exist, independent of language, and that they don't have anything to do with identity. Some people (you, apparently) agree with that and just want to shift the definitions so "man" means "someone who identifies as a man" and will be replaced by "biological man". But other people don't agree, they don't believe that "man" and "woman" are immanent categories that exist outside language and culture. As far as language changing, it certainly does, but it rarely changes by fiat. I don't believe changes referenced in this article represent organic change, I think they're a fad that will only catch on in a few enclaves. We'll see.
  - red_trumpet 4y ago
    > and that they don't have anything to do with identity. That's absurd. It divides humans into two groups, and everytime you divide humans into groups they make this about their identity.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
  - dahdum 4y ago
    > Some people (you, apparently) agree with that and just want to shift the definitions so "man" means "someone who identifies as a man" and will be replaced by "biological man". I don’t particularly care what the common use meanings are or if they shift over time, I’ll use what I think is most appropriate for the circumstances and audience, while trying to be as inclusive as I can. Though I won’t be using “menstruators” any time soon for the same reason I won’t use “Latinx”, too many people I interact with find it derogatory and offensive.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by slibhb 4y ago

socialismisok 4y ago

I believe your view is not keeping up with the times. I think as long as you acknowledge there are people who use language to disambiguate sex and gender, but you choose not to use that language, then you are just expressing your opinion. I think it's fair for folks to probe why you choose the language you do, and even to suggest that the reasons you supply might be considered ignorant. We only improve if we all try to understand the reasoning behind each other more.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
There's this strange perception that anything new must be good and right. Perhaps OPs language isn't keeping up with the times, or maybe the times are just...incorrect.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  I didn't suggest that new was correct, I suggested new exists and we should acknowledge it. I don't use "yeet" as a word, and I find it silly. But nonetheless I'm aware some people do use it, and so it's in my lexicon as a word that I just don't care for. My point is that we cannot deny new usages. We can disagree with them or choose not to use them, but denying them is just never going to work.
  - crackercrews 4y ago
    This completely misses the point. No one here is unaware that people use these terms in new ways. Likewise they are not denying the usage. They are saying the usage is imprecise. It commandeers an existing word. Using that word in the conventional way is portrayed as archaic or bigoted. This is not remotely the same as making up a new word like yeet.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      I disagree, plenty of people have stated quite the opposite - that there exists one definition only and the other definitions are incorrect. I believe language is descriptive, and therefore definitions follow usage. If there exists new usage in common enough use, then the definition follows that use. And I don't believe the traditional use of a word makes one a bigot by default. I think that there are both bigots and non bigots that use the words traditionally. But this thread is absolutely stock full of people refusing to acknowledge that there might be multiple correct definitions.
      - crackercrews 4y ago
        You disagree that a neologism is different from changing the definition of an existing word? Please elaborate on how those two things are not distinguishable.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        No, I disagree that people understand there are two definitions in common use. The parent said that no one disagrees that people use the word in that way. I'd argue that several people in this thread have done so implicitly or explicitly by saying something to the effect of, "man means X and only X".
        crackercrews 4y ago
        Actually, the comment does not talk about that. It just says: > There's this strange perception that anything new must be good and right. Perhaps OPs language isn't keeping up with the times, or maybe the times are just...incorrect. This asserts that newness does not equate with correctness. This implicitly recognizes that there are multiple uses.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        I'm responding specifically to: "No one here is unaware that people use these terms in new ways. Likewise they are not denying the usage." Other places in this post people absolutely do deny the usage.
chongli 4y ago
use language to disambiguate That's the ultimate issue here. Different groups of people want to disambiguate some terms and conflate others, and there is not enough overlap between these groups to reach a common ground. At its core is a struggle for power with the meanings of words representing territory to be won or lost. Orwell wrote extensively on this topic and left us with some pretty stern warnings which we as a society continue to ignore. And while everyone fights over this stuff we are ruining the planet and risking catastrophic consequences both environmental and political.

dahdum 4y ago

You're arguing definitions, but ultimately language is use, and use is always changing. You can carry on as you've always had, but some fraction of the public will assume ignorance, some stubbornness, and some malice. It's not really any different than terms for ethnic minorities or those with disabilities over time. How you approach it is up to you, but how people perceive you is up to them.

slibhb 4y ago
It's not quite as simple as arguing definitions. My argument is that the categories "man" and "woman" really exist, independent of language, and that they don't have anything to do with identity. Some people (you, apparently) agree with that and just want to shift the definitions so "man" means "someone who identifies as a man" and will be replaced by "biological man". But other people don't agree, they don't believe that "man" and "woman" are immanent categories that exist outside language and culture. As far as language changing, it certainly does, but it rarely changes by fiat. I don't believe changes referenced in this article represent organic change, I think they're a fad that will only catch on in a few enclaves. We'll see.
- red_trumpet 4y ago
  > and that they don't have anything to do with identity. That's absurd. It divides humans into two groups, and everytime you divide humans into groups they make this about their identity.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
- dahdum 4y ago
  > Some people (you, apparently) agree with that and just want to shift the definitions so "man" means "someone who identifies as a man" and will be replaced by "biological man". I don’t particularly care what the common use meanings are or if they shift over time, I’ll use what I think is most appropriate for the circumstances and audience, while trying to be as inclusive as I can. Though I won’t be using “menstruators” any time soon for the same reason I won’t use “Latinx”, too many people I interact with find it derogatory and offensive.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]