Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 5:57 pm
...you could easily paraphrase that as "verb is one of the genders"?
Obscurantism. I said no such thing.
I see what you're up to. Not going to play.
The main point: there is no such thing, in reference to humans, as "gender." That term was coined by John Money in 1955, on the basis of no scientific evidence whatsoever.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 5:31 pm
Very easily. That's what the word "gender" actually meant, until recently. Nowadays, it has been artificially expanded to imply there's a thing called "gender" that refers to human beings. But that's not scientific or realistic. All there is, is two sexes. There are no "genders."
So to apply a gender to words isn't an artificial attribution?
It's an original usage, not an "artificial" one.
It seems very artificial; not least because it is totally arbitrary. It isn't necessary for words to have a gender; English words don't have genders, or at least if they do it is only when they refer to something that has a biological gender, or sex, if you prefer. And when a noun, in whatever language, does have a gender, is it really the word that supposedly has a gender, or the object it refers to, or even both? The artificiality seems to become even more apparent when one considers that nouns in different languages that refer to the same thing quite often have different genders. And lastly, can you say what is scientific or realistic about something like a table having a gender, whether it be masculine, as in German, or Feminine, as in French?
And absolutely lastly; why do human beings have fewer rights than things like tables when it comes to being entitled to have a gender?
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 5:57 pm
...you could easily paraphrase that as "verb is one of the genders"?
Obscurantism. I said no such thing.
I see what you're up to. Not going to play.
The main point: there is no such thing, in reference to humans, as "gender." That term was coined by John Money in 1955, on the basis of no scientific evidence whatsoever.
I'm only up to saying that your "whole story" doesn't suffice, because it's not even clear from what you've written what you're saying the story is. You may HAVE a whole story, and a fully satisfying one, but you haven't communicated it in this thread.
So to apply a gender to words isn't an artificial attribution?
It's an original usage, not an "artificial" one.
It seems very artificial; not least because it is totally arbitrary. It isn't necessary for words to have a gender; English words don't have genders, or at least if they do it is only when they refer to something that has a biological gender, or sex, if you prefer. And when a noun, in whatever language, does have a gender, is it really the word that supposedly has a gender, or the object it refers to, or even both? The artificiality seems to become even more apparent when one considers that nouns in different languages that refer to the same thing quite often have different genders. And lastly, can you say what is scientific or realistic about something like a table having a gender, whether it be masculine, as in German, or Feminine, as in French?
And absolutely lastly; why do human beings have fewer rights than things like tables when it comes to being entitled to have a gender?
How are you defining 'artificial'? Who are you to say that the word 'table' shouldn't have a gender? Do you think it means biological sex? What do you mean 'fewer rights'? What 'rights' do men in frocks not have that men not in frocks have? Hmm. Let me think. The right to not use women's toilets. The right to not be in women's prisons. The right to not use women's refuges. The right to not compete in women's sports. The right to not trample all over women's rights.
You should stick to being funny. Logic obviously isn't your forte (or the rights of women).
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 8:24 am
And how in the world can that be "the whole story" about gender?
Very easily. That's what the word "gender" actually meant, until recently. Nowadays, it has been artificially expanded to imply there's a thing called "gender" that refers to human beings. But that's not scientific or realistic. All there is, is two sexes. There are no "genders."
So to apply a gender to words isn't an artificial attribution? What would you say entitles a word to have a gender, but not a person?
Because gender applies to words and not people?? Is that too difficult for you to understand? It's the application of it to HUMAN BIOLOGY that's artificial!
It's almost as if members of the genderwoo cult have no reading comprehension skills, or perhaps they are all just misogynistis. Which is the most likely?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 6:11 pm
It's an original usage, not an "artificial" one.
It seems very artificial; not least because it is totally arbitrary. It isn't necessary for words to have a gender; English words don't have genders, or at least if they do it is only when they refer to something that has a biological gender, or sex, if you prefer. And when a noun, in whatever language, does have a gender, is it really the word that supposedly has a gender, or the object it refers to, or even both? The artificiality seems to become even more apparent when one considers that nouns in different languages that refer to the same thing quite often have different genders. And lastly, can you say what is scientific or realistic about something like a table having a gender, whether it be masculine, as in German, or Feminine, as in French?
And absolutely lastly; why do human beings have fewer rights than things like tables when it comes to being entitled to have a gender?
How are you defining 'artificial'? Who are you to say that the word 'table' shouldn't have a gender? Do you think it means biological sex? What do you mean 'fewer rights'? What 'rights' do men in frocks not have that men not in frocks have? Hmm. Let me think. The right to not use women's toilets. The right to not be in women's prisons. The right to not use women's refuges. The right to not compete in women's sports. The right to not trample all over women's rights.
You should stick to being funny. Logic obviously isn't your forte (or the rights of women).
I wasn't expressing any logic, I was merely questioning someone else's.
I hope you don't mind my saying, but you always seem to be in a bad mood lately.
It seems very artificial; not least because it is totally arbitrary. It isn't necessary for words to have a gender; English words don't have genders, or at least if they do it is only when they refer to something that has a biological gender, or sex, if you prefer. And when a noun, in whatever language, does have a gender, is it really the word that supposedly has a gender, or the object it refers to, or even both? The artificiality seems to become even more apparent when one considers that nouns in different languages that refer to the same thing quite often have different genders. And lastly, can you say what is scientific or realistic about something like a table having a gender, whether it be masculine, as in German, or Feminine, as in French?
And absolutely lastly; why do human beings have fewer rights than things like tables when it comes to being entitled to have a gender?
How are you defining 'artificial'? Who are you to say that the word 'table' shouldn't have a gender? Do you think it means biological sex? What do you mean 'fewer rights'? What 'rights' do men in frocks not have that men not in frocks have? Hmm. Let me think. The right to not use women's toilets. The right to not be in women's prisons. The right to not use women's refuges. The right to not compete in women's sports. The right to not trample all over women's rights.
You should stick to being funny. Logic obviously isn't your forte (or the rights of women).
I wasn't expressing any logic, I was merely questioning someone else's.
I hope you don't mind my saying, but you always seem to be in a bad mood lately.
My 'mood' is none of your beeswax. Nice deflection away from addressing the actual argument though. And you always seem to be sucking up to a certain clay-headed sourpuss lately. You don't tell him he always 'seems to be in a bad mood' (which he does).
I hope you don't mind my saying, but you always seem to be in a bad mood lately.
My 'mood' is none of your beeswax. And you always seem to be sucking up to a certain clay-headed sourpuss lately. You don't ask 'him' why he always 'seems to be in a bad mood'.
Your bad moods wouldn't normally be any of my beeswax, but I would argue that they are when I find myself on the sharp end of one of them. And which clay-headed sourpuss are you referring to?
Imo this gender thing is getting tedious. Imo biologically, there are men (who are male in the brain and the rest of the body), there are women (who are female in the brain and the rest of the body), and there are nonbinary people (who are not fully either male or female in the brain and the rest of the body).
People who are biologically male or female, don't get to choose a "gender". They are either male or female, and that's that. If they want to choose a "gender", then they are nuts and should be put into therapy. Maybe grow up, get their shit together. Their behaviour is detrimental to society.
Of course it's impossible right now to tell who is and isn't male or female in the brain, and where do we even draw the line (say 90%?), but really this idea of choosing your "gender" should only be available to nonbinary people.
I hope you don't mind my saying, but you always seem to be in a bad mood lately.
My 'mood' is none of your beeswax. And you always seem to be sucking up to a certain clay-headed sourpuss lately. You don't ask 'him' why he always 'seems to be in a bad mood'.
Your bad moods wouldn't normally be any of my beeswax, but I would argue that they are when I find myself on the sharp end of one of them. And which clay-headed sourpuss are you referring to?
My comment was directed at your comment. Do you have an argument?
My 'mood' is none of your beeswax. And you always seem to be sucking up to a certain clay-headed sourpuss lately. You don't ask 'him' why he always 'seems to be in a bad mood'.
Your bad moods wouldn't normally be any of my beeswax, but I would argue that they are when I find myself on the sharp end of one of them. And which clay-headed sourpuss are you referring to?
My comment was directed at your comment. Do you have an argument?
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 8:43 pm
Imo this gender thing is getting tedious. Imo biologically, there are men (who are male in the brain and the rest of the body), there are women (who are female in the brain and the rest of the body), and there are nonbinary people (who are not fully either male or female in the brain and the rest of the body).
People who are biologically male or female, don't get to choose a "gender". They are either male or female, and that's that. If they want to choose a "gender", then they are nuts and should be put into therapy. Maybe grow up, get their shit together. Their behaviour is detrimental to society.
Of course it's impossible right now to tell who is and isn't male or female in the brain, and where do we even draw the line (say 90%?), but really this idea of choosing your "gender" should only be available to nonbinary people.
Do you know what people (narcissists) mean when they say they are 'non binary'? It means they are trying to be interesting and 'edgy' (the blue hair always helps with this) and desperately need attention. Other than that it means exactly nothing.
Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 8:41 pm
Your bad moods wouldn't normally be any of my beeswax, but I would argue that they are when I find myself on the sharp end of one of them. And which clay-headed sourpuss are you referring to?
My comment was directed at your comment. Do you have an argument?
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 8:43 pm
Imo this gender thing is getting tedious. Imo biologically, there are men (who are male in the brain and the rest of the body), there are women (who are female in the brain and the rest of the body), and there are nonbinary people (who are not fully either male or female in the brain and the rest of the body).
People who are biologically male or female, don't get to choose a "gender". They are either male or female, and that's that. If they want to choose a "gender", then they are nuts and should be put into therapy. Maybe grow up, get their shit together. Their behaviour is detrimental to society.
Of course it's impossible right now to tell who is and isn't male or female in the brain, and where do we even draw the line (say 90%?), but really this idea of choosing your "gender" should only be available to nonbinary people.
Do you know what people (narcissists) mean when they say they are 'non binary'? It means they are trying to be interesting and 'edgy' (the blue hair always helps with this) and desperately need attention. Other than that it means exactly nothing.
I guess the correct word would have been intersex, I just dislike that word.
