3 ms·

> Which is why the definition is being updated to include them. We discovered and are now socially recognizing a different kind of man and woman. Ah, but there

> Which is why the definition is being updated to include them. We discovered and are now socially recognizing a different kind of man and woman. Ah, but there is the problem. You've declared that the definition is changing. The majority of people are not on board with this, and yet you press ahead. This is where the authoritarianism of this movement emerges... > If I define good person as someone who doesn’t misgender trans people then you are NOT a good person and that’s okay to say There it is again. "I decided on a new definition. If you don't participate, you are a bad person." This is a cynical ploy to seize the moral high ground, but it is not actually accompanied by moral superiority. > we’ve updated the definition of men and women to include trans men and women Who is "we"? You belong to a tiny minority that has declared victory without the vast majority of English speakers consenting. Yes, changing the definition of "woman" hurts women. > treating them in a manner different from a cisgender woman including but not limited to calling them something other than women. You don't have the right to declare a new definition and then call other people bad for not agreeing. This, again, is the authoritarian problem with this movement. And, thus, it will fail. You have a right to be treated with respect. You don't have a right to control or bulldoze other people. "Your reach ends where my nose beings." "Trans woman" is the most apt descriptor of a trans woman. "Woman" is not. Trans women ARE different than biological women.

Spivak 4y ago
> You've declared that the definition is changing. Well yeah because I’m a language descriptivist, not because I’m authoritarian. All words are subject to change at all times. > There it is again. "I decided on a new definition. If you don't participate Read that bit again. I’m pointing out the absurdity of that very statement. You say word should mean X, I say it should mean Y. The argument is not whether it does mean X or Y. That’s irrelevant and just leads us to taking past one another. The argument for trans women being women and meaning Y is the one that’s backed by the medical community. > Who is "we"? You belong to a tiny minority that has declared victory. Bold of you to assume I’m trans. I’m up in this thread because I do lgbt activism work and use the internet to workshop talking to people about lgbt issues. Also trans people aren’t a tiny minority, 1 in 100 is small but not insignificant by any stretch. > Yes, changing the definition of "woman" hurts women. It most certainly doesn’t hurt me. Acknowledging that there are XX women and XY women changes absolutely nothing about the women’s issues I fight for. In fact trans women are marching right beside us on issues like abortion rights and access to birth control. Genuinely curious, does changing the definition of man hurt men in your view? > You don't have the right to declare a new definition I’m not, misgendering trans people is mistreatment by the usual definition. What else would you call knowingly doing some that hurts someone else? And that hurt can be measured empirically, the biggest factor in the trans suicide rate is how accepted they are as their gender. You can call fighting for the ability of trans folks to live their lives free of that harm authoritarian all you want but I can’t see how triggering a trans person’s dysphoria and trauma they were born with and had no choice or control over doesn’t make you a bad person if you do it on purpose. > And, thus, it will fail. Wishful thinking, I’m actually on the ground taking to people. The IRL opposition to trans people isn’t all that big and is vastly over represented on the internet and public discourse by politicians angling for clout. Your typical IRL conservative has no issue with trans people. Thanks to the success of the movement and a bunch of trans folks finally getting to come out it’s pretty rare for someone not to personally know anyone who’s trans. And that’s by far the biggest predictor of how accepting and supportive they are. > Trans woman is the most apt descriptor of a trans woman. "Woman" is not. If you’re not going to call them women then just call them men. It sounds less silly than “grape soda isn’t soda.” Of course trans women are different from cis women. That’s why there’s different words for them. They’re both still women.
- next_xibalba 4y ago
  > I’m a language descriptivist As am I. And modifying the definition of "woman" is not the act of a descriptivist. Maybe what you're saying is true if one lives in SF or Seattle, but over 1 billion people speak English. The vast majority of them do not use the words "woman/man" to include trans women/trans men. For example, in the Philippines, where 90+ million people speak English, the reality of and language for a third gender is widely accepted. But the inclusion of trans people in the definition of "man" and "woman" is not. > I say it should mean Y You say "should", not me. "Should" is not the word of a descriptivist. It is the word of a prescriptivist. > The argument for trans women being women and meaning Y is the one that’s backed by the medical community. For starters, if you're a descriptivist, then you don't believe that any one person or group decides what any word means. Instead, a descriptivist describes usage. What you're referring to is prescriptivism–i.e. that definitions are dictated to their users. Second, this is not settled even within the medical community. > Bold of you to assume I’m trans Where did I make that assumption? The tiny minority of which you are a member, and to which I refer, is the group of people that believe the word "women" includes trans women. Again, there are more than 1 billion English speakers in the world, and the vast majority do not share in this definition. > misgendering trans people is mistreatment by the usual definition. What else would you call knowingly doing some that hurts someone else? Describing physical reality with precision according to a shared vocabulary (aka "a language") is not immoral and it is not an act of violence. Thus, if someone's feelings are hurt by it, it is not wrong. Rather, perhaps we should think about why that person's feelings are injured by an accurate descriptor? Is it a personal problem? Is it a societal problem? Etc. > I’m not (declaring a new definition)...You can call fighting for the ability of trans folks to live their lives free of that harm authoritarian Advocating for trans people isn't the issue. That's great. Glad you're doing it. The issue is the desire to seize authority over something that doesn't belong to you: the English language. To do so is an authoritarian act. Again, there are over 1 billion English speakers, that vast majority of which do not agree with nor consent to this expanded definition of woman. This is not a descriptivist act. It is not a democratic act. It is an authoritarian act. > Wishful thinking, I’m actually on the ground taking to people. Sounds like you may be operating under significant selection bias. Also, you're conflating a resistance to the language you seek to change to dictate to "opposition to trans people." Those are not the same thing. I agree, most people don't have an opposition to trans people in principle. The resistance materializes as an effect of how and for what many trans activists advocate. Most of us agree that we should treat trans people with respect and dignity. However, we often do not agree with, for example, unilateral changes to our language or believing that health insurance should pay for reassignment surgeries and hormonal therapies. The principle of "your reach ends where my nose begins" cuts both ways. > If you’re not going to call them women then just call them men. It sounds less silly than “grape soda isn’t soda.” This is a bad metaphor, similar to the green apples/red apples metaphor. A more apt metaphor would be "grape juice isn't soda, but it is a beverage". I.e. "a trans woman isn't a woman, but they are a human."

Spivak 4y ago

> You've declared that the definition is changing. Well yeah because I’m a language descriptivist, not because I’m authoritarian. All words are subject to change at all times. > There it is again. "I decided on a new definition. If you don't participate Read that bit again. I’m pointing out the absurdity of that very statement. You say word should mean X, I say it should mean Y. The argument is not whether it does mean X or Y. That’s irrelevant and just leads us to taking past one another. The argument for trans women being women and meaning Y is the one that’s backed by the medical community. > Who is "we"? You belong to a tiny minority that has declared victory. Bold of you to assume I’m trans. I’m up in this thread because I do lgbt activism work and use the internet to workshop talking to people about lgbt issues. Also trans people aren’t a tiny minority, 1 in 100 is small but not insignificant by any stretch. > Yes, changing the definition of "woman" hurts women. It most certainly doesn’t hurt me. Acknowledging that there are XX women and XY women changes absolutely nothing about the women’s issues I fight for. In fact trans women are marching right beside us on issues like abortion rights and access to birth control. Genuinely curious, does changing the definition of man hurt men in your view? > You don't have the right to declare a new definition I’m not, misgendering trans people is mistreatment by the usual definition. What else would you call knowingly doing some that hurts someone else? And that hurt can be measured empirically, the biggest factor in the trans suicide rate is how accepted they are as their gender. You can call fighting for the ability of trans folks to live their lives free of that harm authoritarian all you want but I can’t see how triggering a trans person’s dysphoria and trauma they were born with and had no choice or control over doesn’t make you a bad person if you do it on purpose. > And, thus, it will fail. Wishful thinking, I’m actually on the ground taking to people. The IRL opposition to trans people isn’t all that big and is vastly over represented on the internet and public discourse by politicians angling for clout. Your typical IRL conservative has no issue with trans people. Thanks to the success of the movement and a bunch of trans folks finally getting to come out it’s pretty rare for someone not to personally know anyone who’s trans. And that’s by far the biggest predictor of how accepting and supportive they are. > Trans woman is the most apt descriptor of a trans woman. "Woman" is not. If you’re not going to call them women then just call them men. It sounds less silly than “grape soda isn’t soda.” Of course trans women are different from cis women. That’s why there’s different words for them. They’re both still women.

next_xibalba 4y ago
> I’m a language descriptivist As am I. And modifying the definition of "woman" is not the act of a descriptivist. Maybe what you're saying is true if one lives in SF or Seattle, but over 1 billion people speak English. The vast majority of them do not use the words "woman/man" to include trans women/trans men. For example, in the Philippines, where 90+ million people speak English, the reality of and language for a third gender is widely accepted. But the inclusion of trans people in the definition of "man" and "woman" is not. > I say it should mean Y You say "should", not me. "Should" is not the word of a descriptivist. It is the word of a prescriptivist. > The argument for trans women being women and meaning Y is the one that’s backed by the medical community. For starters, if you're a descriptivist, then you don't believe that any one person or group decides what any word means. Instead, a descriptivist describes usage. What you're referring to is prescriptivism–i.e. that definitions are dictated to their users. Second, this is not settled even within the medical community. > Bold of you to assume I’m trans Where did I make that assumption? The tiny minority of which you are a member, and to which I refer, is the group of people that believe the word "women" includes trans women. Again, there are more than 1 billion English speakers in the world, and the vast majority do not share in this definition. > misgendering trans people is mistreatment by the usual definition. What else would you call knowingly doing some that hurts someone else? Describing physical reality with precision according to a shared vocabulary (aka "a language") is not immoral and it is not an act of violence. Thus, if someone's feelings are hurt by it, it is not wrong. Rather, perhaps we should think about why that person's feelings are injured by an accurate descriptor? Is it a personal problem? Is it a societal problem? Etc. > I’m not (declaring a new definition)...You can call fighting for the ability of trans folks to live their lives free of that harm authoritarian Advocating for trans people isn't the issue. That's great. Glad you're doing it. The issue is the desire to seize authority over something that doesn't belong to you: the English language. To do so is an authoritarian act. Again, there are over 1 billion English speakers, that vast majority of which do not agree with nor consent to this expanded definition of woman. This is not a descriptivist act. It is not a democratic act. It is an authoritarian act. > Wishful thinking, I’m actually on the ground taking to people. Sounds like you may be operating under significant selection bias. Also, you're conflating a resistance to the language you seek to change to dictate to "opposition to trans people." Those are not the same thing. I agree, most people don't have an opposition to trans people in principle. The resistance materializes as an effect of how and for what many trans activists advocate. Most of us agree that we should treat trans people with respect and dignity. However, we often do not agree with, for example, unilateral changes to our language or believing that health insurance should pay for reassignment surgeries and hormonal therapies. The principle of "your reach ends where my nose begins" cuts both ways. > If you’re not going to call them women then just call them men. It sounds less silly than “grape soda isn’t soda.” This is a bad metaphor, similar to the green apples/red apples metaphor. A more apt metaphor would be "grape juice isn't soda, but it is a beverage". I.e. "a trans woman isn't a woman, but they are a human."