3 ms·

There's a class of conservative troll who asserts that despite gender having a well understood definition, they have their own dialect where sex and gender have

There's a class of conservative troll who asserts that despite gender having a well understood definition, they have their own dialect where sex and gender have the same definition and everyone else who doesn't share that is wrong. They stick their heads in the sand and assert that theirs is the only truth, just as in the example you posted. There isn't a "both sides" thing here, words have specific definitions and "gender" is one that people decided to make a political statement of by aggressively pretending to be ignorant of it. Having a problem with the above is frequently conflated with being a purity test or having some sort of ideological bend, but it's really some anti-social people trying to start fights about definitions. The people posting these things know exactly what they are doing, and the rest of the world has zero obligation to tolerate them doing so in public. These people have no motive or contribution beyond attempting to tear down community and start fights, and therefore should be removed from places that want to have communities and not fights.

ETH_start 2y ago
A very conventional definition of gender is as a synonym for sex, for example in Merriam Webster's dictionary, where it's given as one of its definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender Even if one didn't accept gender being defined as a synonym of sex, one could very reasonably claim that there are only two genders. It's completely subjective and there's no biological or otherwise physical grounding in judging these things, and no single authority in the English language on whether any genders, beyond male and female, exist. So you claiming that gender is definitively not synonymous with sex, and that the idea that there are only two genders is "definitionally wrong", is an intellectually dishonest characterization of the situation, and shows why censorship on the basis of the claims self-annointed judges of truth, like you, is so dangerous. "These people have no motive or contribution beyond attempting to tear down community and start fights, and therefore should be removed from places that want to have communities and not fights." You think the way to stop fights is to censor everyone who disagrees with you, by falsely claiming that they are "definitionally wrong". These are just attempts to rationalize creating a censored echo chamber where ideological dogmas that don't conform to reality can propagate. Truth doesn't fear debate.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  The Merriam-Webster link you provided has an extensive discussion on the difference between sex and gender. The link you originally provided asserted no other definitions existed than the one they had anointed. The intellectually dishonest characterization lies not where you say it does, though I understand why you claim otherwise. It's a strategy that's proven to work well! If I can't assert with authority that genders beyond male and female exist, with what authority do you assert those two exist?
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    You're once again mischaracterizing what has been provided. The discussion talks about one line of development of one of the definitions of gender. It also provides the "gender as synonym for sex" as one of the primary definitions of gender, and yet you think that your viewpoint that it not synonymous is so unassailable that any viewpoint in contravention of it should be banned from being expressed. Bluesky would not ban someone if they said there are 10 genders, but they will ban someone if they say there are two genders, and you see nothing wrong with that. You're engaging in mental gymnastics to justify this, and trying to equate my expression and my opinion on gender with your preference for censorship of views in contravention of yours.
    - margalabargala 2y ago
      You're doing an excellent job of intentionally selectively misreading what I write to twist into something you can more easily argue against. You're creating a linguistic purity test where someone must be able to declare that your preferred definition is the only valid interpretation, thus creating linguistic "biological facts". Anyone pointing out that multiple definitions exist and that biological realities are more broad is mocked and fought with. These people create nothing positive for their communities and it is appropriate for the communities to ban them, despite their screeches about how they're being censored and should be allowed tobprovoke whomever they like without consequence. BlueSky and Twitter aren't public squares, they're a business more like a cafe, and are allowed to remove disruptive clients.

ETH_start 2y ago

A very conventional definition of gender is as a synonym for sex, for example in Merriam Webster's dictionary, where it's given as one of its definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender Even if one didn't accept gender being defined as a synonym of sex, one could very reasonably claim that there are only two genders. It's completely subjective and there's no biological or otherwise physical grounding in judging these things, and no single authority in the English language on whether any genders, beyond male and female, exist. So you claiming that gender is definitively not synonymous with sex, and that the idea that there are only two genders is "definitionally wrong", is an intellectually dishonest characterization of the situation, and shows why censorship on the basis of the claims self-annointed judges of truth, like you, is so dangerous. "These people have no motive or contribution beyond attempting to tear down community and start fights, and therefore should be removed from places that want to have communities and not fights." You think the way to stop fights is to censor everyone who disagrees with you, by falsely claiming that they are "definitionally wrong". These are just attempts to rationalize creating a censored echo chamber where ideological dogmas that don't conform to reality can propagate. Truth doesn't fear debate.

margalabargala 2y ago
The Merriam-Webster link you provided has an extensive discussion on the difference between sex and gender. The link you originally provided asserted no other definitions existed than the one they had anointed. The intellectually dishonest characterization lies not where you say it does, though I understand why you claim otherwise. It's a strategy that's proven to work well! If I can't assert with authority that genders beyond male and female exist, with what authority do you assert those two exist?
- ETH_start 2y ago
  You're once again mischaracterizing what has been provided. The discussion talks about one line of development of one of the definitions of gender. It also provides the "gender as synonym for sex" as one of the primary definitions of gender, and yet you think that your viewpoint that it not synonymous is so unassailable that any viewpoint in contravention of it should be banned from being expressed. Bluesky would not ban someone if they said there are 10 genders, but they will ban someone if they say there are two genders, and you see nothing wrong with that. You're engaging in mental gymnastics to justify this, and trying to equate my expression and my opinion on gender with your preference for censorship of views in contravention of yours.
  - margalabargala 2y ago
    You're doing an excellent job of intentionally selectively misreading what I write to twist into something you can more easily argue against. You're creating a linguistic purity test where someone must be able to declare that your preferred definition is the only valid interpretation, thus creating linguistic "biological facts". Anyone pointing out that multiple definitions exist and that biological realities are more broad is mocked and fought with. These people create nothing positive for their communities and it is appropriate for the communities to ban them, despite their screeches about how they're being censored and should be allowed tobprovoke whomever they like without consequence. BlueSky and Twitter aren't public squares, they're a business more like a cafe, and are allowed to remove disruptive clients.