3 ms·
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
by 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.