Home Β» Forum Β» Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

When is a Kitten an Aardvark? When is a Male a "Female"?

Marius-6 🚫
Updated:

Another commenter on the Forums posted something (in another topic) that says what I am thinking, better than I might be able to articulate it.

As much as I am a descriptive grammarian, this is (again) insanity of the 'a word means what I mean it to mean, no more and no less' style.

I might as well call you a kitten repeatedly, and - when questioned - explain that the word kitten has morphed into describing someone who claims to know the innermost thoughts and feelings of someone he's never met, and also commonly uses words to mean the opposite of what they normally meant.

You're welcome to use the word the way you mean it to mean. Call me an aardvark, and explain that aardvark means woke.

Just don't expect anyone to understand or agree with your bizarre redefinitions.

I believe that many of us are growing increasingly Frustrated; sometimes morphing into anger, when Words seem to take on Different "meanings" than they have had for our lifetimes.

I understand that "Languages Evolve" and so too definitions and meanings (usually, but not always the same).

However, in the 21st Century the "evolution" (Revolution?) of words, definitions and meanings, has greatly accelerated. Not merely because of advances of technology.

There are groups, and in some cases, powerful individuals who believe they are advancing their agendas by Morphing words and definitions.

I am too often hearing rhetoric such as "You believe X. Well, X (Now) means Y. So, YOU MUST Believe Y." to coerce people into believing the "New Thing" or at a minimum intimidates them into ceasing to argue, lest they be Cancelled!

As an example: Many people believe in Title IX to promote Women's Collegiate Sports, because for most of the 20th Century nearly all of the resources were devoted to Mens' Sports.

Recently a distinctly mediocre Mens' Collegiate Swimmer, who was as I recall ranked in the mid 150's or something (who was much better than I, even at my athletic peak). Proclaimed himself to be a "woman" and "suddenly HE was setting WORLD RECORDS In WOMENS' COLLEGIATE SWIMMING!" And, We were "Expected" to "celebrate" "her" accomplishments... the Actual Women Swimmers, and I could NOT avoid Noticing His Dick that made an Obvious, if small bulge in his Woman's Swimsuit! When some women athletes dared to complain, they were Threatened with Loss of Their Awards, Scholarships, and Threatened with being Cancelled!" So too were others who supported the actual women athletes threatened, and often their comments were erased from YouTube, Twitter, and elsewhere.

In our lifetimes if a male "sincerely" believed they were a "woman" they would have received Mental Health care (admittedly, probably not that good, unless they or their family was wealthy and spent serious money for good treatment). If they were just trying to make that False claim for personal gain, they would have likely been Criminally Charged with Fraud!

In the second decade of the 21st Century the people are coerced into "celebrating" His, no "her" it's, theirs... GAH! It is a Logical and Grammatical Nightmare! Lest we be Cancelled, lose our job, perhaps even be incarcerated for denying He is whatever he claims to be!

Fuck whatever consenting adult you want. You get to choose your own name; but if I can't pronounce it "correctly" I'm just gonna call you "Alphabet" or one of the other things my Drill Sergeants called people with incomprehensible names.

If you've got a Beard, and wear a dress, don't be surprised if I presume you are a Dude. Hell, I might Laugh, if I figure you can't kick my ass. If you are wearing high heels, I could probably hobble away faster than that freak can run.

Government Officials Threating to put Me in Jail for not being willing to go along with His mental illness or fantasy is Tyranny!

My real concern is that If we can't agree upon Facts, and we use Words with particular Definitions to discuss those Facts... We are Doomed to Conflict! Since perhaps the 1950's (in Western Civilizations) there have been a small minority attempting to impose radical changes.

Some changes were good, such as the Civil Rights movement(s) that ended Governments (and major corporations) abusing their powers in a Racist manner. "Equal" rights for women... If a woman is able to perform the physical tasks required of a Firefighter (see, I didn't say Fireman), then hire her, and pay her the same as a male firefighter of similar skill and experience. Don't Lower the Standards so as to be able to hire "x number" of female firefighters. {Some "progressives" are confusing even themselves, not knowing for whom to advocate when males Claiming to be Womyn demand to fill Quotas for Women...}

The Reverend Doctor Marin Luther King Jr. was able to Persuade a vast majority of people in the USA to end Government Segregation. Enforce Voting Rights. He did not advocate for the use of Government Power to compel people to change their minds. By the Power of his arguments, logic, and rhetoric, he managed to convince many racists to change their thinking. You will probably never persuade all of the racists, however, it is possible to inform and sway a majority of the population.

"Progressives" have managed to convince a majority of voters to enact numerous changes during the 20th Century. To "Fight the War to End All Wars." Or Prohibition (of Alcohol), or to repeal Prohibition. To establish Social Security, the TVA, CCC, to drink Tang, conserve the environment, reduce pollution, to Require by Law that vehicles have seatbelts, and later to have LEOs Ticket people for Not wearing seatbelts, drive flimsier (and more dangerous) cars to reduce fuel consumption, etc., etc., etc.

In the USA, Canada, Western Europe, and to a lesser extent degree other parts of the world, Persuasion has changed the thinking, and the voting of a majority of the people.

In the United Kingdom at least a slim majority of the voters were persuaded to reduce the government/union dominance of much of the economy. Not everyone agrees on all the outcomes, or the future. Brexit is another example.

It seems to me that some people, frustrated that they could not persuade a majority of the people to adopt radical opinions (i.e., a Male is a "female" if he says so). So, they have been attempting, too often successfully, to alter the definition of words!

If we cannot agree on Facts, and Facts require that we agree on the Definitions of Words; then we cannot engage in civil debate.

In the late 1970's and in the 1980's a resistance movement in Poland was to put a sign with: 2+2=4 in a window. The Russians / Soviet Union officials didn't know quite how to respond. Soviet Authorities proclaimed Obviously False statements; the Polish people persisted in believing Facts.

Last week, in Ireland, a Teacher at a Catholic school was sent to Prison for refusing to proclaim that a Male is a "female" in an ostensibly "Free Nation"

This week there is yet again another attempt to compel Seattle Pacific University, a Methodist institution, to go against their religious convictions to employ gay, lesbian, transexual, etc. instructors or staff. You may feel, or even think that is wrong. In the USA we still have the Right to religious beliefs (that don't conflict with other peoples' Constitutional Rights). No "religion" could get away with claiming that the practice of Slavery is among their "beliefs" and get away with it. However, some people seem to be getting away with polygamy and the government isn't enforcing those laws. (And Not just in SOL Stories.) No one has a right to a job. I can't compel a Hindu restaurant to serve me a Roast Beef Sandwich.

No "progressive" has been bold enough to "demand" to be allowed to be a female or "transgendered" Imam or instructor at a Madrassa in the USA. Yet... If that occurs, That will be an Interesting Day!

I fear that if we cannot agree to tolerance at least in the definition of words, we will inevitably spiral into violence.

I hope that here, on Stories On Line, and in particular in the Forums, We can agree that a Kitten is a Kitten. Of course, if in a Story You write, you want a Kitten to be an Aardvark; well, at least use proper Tags.

I welcome comments, and suggestions on how we can keep Our Discussions civil and have a better understanding of the definitions of words, at least in the SOL Forum. Perhaps we could even share some of that civility in our little spheres outside of SOL too. Writes can be influential to society, though most of us are "very small fish in a very large Ocean" but change has to start somewhere.

[I made a few edits to correct some misspellings I noticed after posting.]

Dominions Son 🚫

@Marius-6

It's one thing when the language changes naturally from within.

It's something else when interest groups try to force a change in language.

Fighting the former is almost always futile. Fighting the latter is not futile (even though victory would not be certain).

Sometimes fighting for a lost cause is not worth it, but sometimes it's better to go down fighting.

Pixy 🚫

@Marius-6

I find that the fact the term "Woke", has morphed into something else, and indeed, is continuing to morph into something as yet unknown, which I find both troubling and amusing in equal measure.

Where it is going to end up, I doubt it is going to be acceptable to those who originally coined and resided under it's banner.

In fact, I can already see in my minds eye, the complaints of the original wokists, about cultural appropriation...

As writers, it provides both fodder and head-aches. Do we include all sides of the debate in our stories and entice the wrath of all sides of the spectrum, or do we water it down to something beige that all will tolerate. If tolerance is even possible.

Something is definitely broken within society at the moment.

I have met many diverse people over the years from many divides, professions, races, countries. Some are nice, some are not, it matters not what their personal beliefs are.

Frightened animals will lash out in fear, not really understanding what they are doing, and that seems to be the human race at the moment, and I wonder what it is that we fear.

There is a strict rule on no politics here for good reason, and I wonder if that rule will soon be expanded to include discussions on gender and similar. I hope not. It would be great if we could all converse in a mature non-judgmental way, but alas, we are but human and prejudiced.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf 🚫

@Pixy

As far as I'm concerned, 'woke' means either 'the thing I'm in favor of' (though most 'woke' people - in that sense - don't use the term anymore) or 'the thing I hate'.

It doesn't matter what it is. If you don't like it, and it can somehow be described in any way as being to the 'left' of (pick your favorite example - I'll use the John Birch Society), it's 'woke' and therefore 'bad'.

It's turning into a meaningless term of opprobrium, like some people are trying to do with 'Marxist' or 'communist' or has long since been done with 'liberal'.

When the same word is used for 'power to the oppressed masses' and 'corporations conducting their business in the way they see fit', or 'let's be nice to people' and 'let's be really mean to people', it's meaningless noise.

DiscipleN 🚫

@Marius-6

I realize that the OP is mostly discussing the usage of words, but in doing so they claim that the difference between a kitten and an aardvark is the same as differences between how human beings sense their personal gender. (it's even the frigging title!)

I find that to be a terrible comparison. Do I need to list the ways in which a kitten and aardvark differ, to support my finding?

The person tries to support their point with anecdotes that have nothing to do with the vast majority of humans who feel that their gender does not match their body. Note: I'm talking about the majority of gender-queer people who are a minority of all humans.

If the person had spoken of scientific studies of this minority population, instead of anecdotes of individuals, they wouldn't have lost credibility.

Remus2 🚫

@Marius-6

High probability this thread gets locked.

Today's weather forecast:
70% chance of a shit storm with hurt feelings and politics.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl 🚫

@Remus2

70% chance of a shit storm with hurt feelings and politics.

That low? I was going for more along the lines of 100% politics within the next 48 hours. Who cares about feelings? Fuck your hurt feelings is my motto. :)

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 🚫

@StarFleet Carl

Got myself a repremand from HR on my last project over that. I had a pad of hurt feeling report forms made. When one of the little darling intern engineers would complain, I'd hand one to them. Besides needing a road map, flashlight, and GPS to find their own arse, they were all lacking in competence. When I pointed out where they were going wrong and how, they took it as my being a hateful curmudgeon.
Never mind the fact they couldn't understand why carbon 7018 rods couldn't be used on stainless steel or other similar matters. But I'm an asshole when I tell them no???
I'll be damned if I'm going to bend over backwards to kiss their arse while I'm pointing out where they fucked up.
The stupid bitch who pulled the filler metal problem cost the project two months on the schedule due to rework. She filed a complaint for harassment because I handed her one of those reports after she turned in the waterworks. Apparently her gender was susposed to give her a free pass on that fuck up.
I take a harsh line when the fuck up threatens lives. So yeah, fuck the hurt feelings.

irvmull 🚫

@Marius-6

Ever since I was a kid, I've wanted to fly. Now, apparently, all I need to do is call myself an airplane.

Let not the fact that I lack equipment such as wings deter me in my delusion.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl 🚫

@irvmull

all I need to do is call myself an airplane.

Funny (to me) story:

My wife and I were at a company Christmas party. The company had several thousand employees, and so it was held at a large hotel in Indianapolis. I was dressed in a nice three piece suit, and was standing by my wife, waiting for the valet service to bring up our car as we were leaving. Someone else who was a little (a lot) inebriated came up to me and said, "Hey, you need to call me a cab." I looked at her and her friends like they were nuts and ignored her.

She then grabbed my arm. "Hey, I'm talking to you. You need to call me a cab!"

I calmly pulled her hand from my sleeve, then said, "Miss ... you're a cab." At that time, the valet pulled up in our car, and I walked out with my wife. More or less carrying her, actually, as she was laughing so hard we had to stop a few blocks away so she could run into a gas station to pee.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Marius-6

Congratulations, you've started a forum topic with a built-in Darwin Award.

Why don't do do what Lazlo Zalezac might have done, take the most extreme cases of what you disagree with and write a SOL story about a hero overcoming them?

If you need an example, a UK hospital refused to accept that a woman had been raped on one of its women-only ward because it contained only women therefore it was physically impossible. The nurses had conspired to cover up that one of the patients was a trans-woman. That fact eventually emerged and I believe the perp is being brought to justice, but none of the nurses have been disciplined.

AJ

richardshagrin 🚫

@Marius-6

Very strong tropical storms that get female names should be hericanes. With guy's names, they should be himicanes. Without names or ones like Storm 23 that don't indicate sex should be hurricanes.

Grey Wolf 🚫

@Marius-6

As many people have said, this is likely to get locked.

Since my quote triggered this, I'll just say:

Being nice to people: good.

Forcing people to be nice to other people: bad.

Respecting someone's decisions about their own life and identity: good.

Jailing someone if they don't respect someone's decisions about their own life and identity: bad.

A company's HR department telling you that you have to respect other employees: fine - they're a business, they can do that.

The government telling companies that their HR departments have to enforce respect for other employees: bad.

Allowing people who have gender identities which do not conform to their biologically determined sex to participate in the sorts of activities cis-gender people participate in (including sports): good.

Having only two categories and putting people with statistically vastly different biochemistry in with other people: bad.

Also, about that teacher in Ireland - he was jailed for violating a court order to stay away from his workplace. That's very different. His employer told him not to come into the school and obtained a court order to that effect; he came into the school anyway. I'm pretty sure when HR tells you that you're suspended, and you come in anyway, there will be consequences. The government didn't tell the HR department to tell the employee not to come in.

That's a very different picture than 'employee jailed for refusing to use a pronoun'. He could have avoided jail and never used the pronoun by following his work suspension. One may follow one's principles freely; that does not guarantee one the right to employment (or continued employment).

StarFleet Carl 🚫

@Grey Wolf

One may follow one's principles freely; that does not guarantee one the right to employment (or continued employment).

You don't mean you're actually talking about holding someone accountable for their actions and/or deeds? Why, how dare you!

I would hope that I don't actually have to post that my above words weren't just dripping, but were totally and completely covered with sarcasm. But this is the internet, so ...

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf 🚫

@StarFleet Carl

Of course, I am. Far too many people think that 'Freedom of Speech' or 'Freedom of Religion' somehow means that other people have to like your speech or religion, or that employers can't regulate what you do while at work, while representing the employer, etc.

The teacher in this case claims: 1) his religion forbids him from using the student's chosen pronouns, despite his employer telling him to (perfectly fine - his religion can say that), and 2) that he can just show up and teach, despite his employer telling him that he's suspended, because his 'Freedom of Religion' means that they can't suspend him for not using pronouns because his religion says he can't use pronouns.

Part 2, in my opinion, is nonsense. Yes, an employer's behavior can rise to the level of impermissible discrimination on the basis of religion, but this ain't it.

John Demille 🚫

@Grey Wolf

Allowing people who have gender identities which do not conform to their biologically determined sex to participate in the sorts of activities cis-gender people participate in (including sports): good.

No, not good. This shit is now destroying society and destroying countless lives.

No, not good at all.

What started as 'Gay people deserve love too' has reached now, thru a slippery slope of ever more advancing line, a stage where kids are being allowed and mostly encouraged to make decisions that they are not equipped to make that ruins their lives forever.

20 years ago, if a big man with big muscles, deep voice and a beard came up to you and said "I'm a woman", you'd laugh in his face. If he insists that you treat him like a woman you would recommend he seeks mental help, if he starts screaming in your face 'It's maam' you'd rightfully call the cops on him.

But somehow, with the insistence of the woke we have reached a totally ridiculous level of depravity where they're now normalizing sterilizing kids, butchering their bodies and working towards making pedophilia normal. Where we incarcerate convicted rapists with women simply because the dirtbag claims to be a woman now and he gets to rape the women he's incarcerated with and impregnating them.

What was previously normal is now called cis-het. What the vast majority of people think and feel is now relegated to being the abnormal part of an ideology that is literally insane. The vast majority of people (around 96% of them) who are heterosexual are now being labelled as cis-het (as if we needed a label) and are being stigmatized for being normal and being called oppressive. Have you heard the phrase 'heteronormatively oppressive' yet?

Being bullied into being 'nice' has allowed a tiny minority of activists to pervert a society into accepting the sterilization, mutilation of a big chunk of the youngest generation. We went from a normal that protected the weakest and most precious among us (our future generation) to a society that abuses them and mutilates them.

When it's acceptable and highly promoted by the nation's hospitals to chop up the breasts of 14 year-old girls, and the penises of 14 and 15 year-old boys, then something is severely wrong. When innocent kids between 7 and 13 are put on puberty blockers (sterilizing hormones) that alter their bodies and their lives forever, then something is severely wrong. When those same kids cannot be allowed or trusted to handle alcohol or sign any contracts because their brains are not matured yet to realize the consequences of their action, are allowed to make a decision that will affect their whole future, then something is wrong.

We have in the west laws that prohibit even writing stories about underage kids having sex and yet at the same time schools being protected while disseminating graphic porn novels. Storiesonline and other adult sites are compelled to turn away minors and at the same time school teachers teach six and seven year-olds 'porn literacy'. Do you think we're heading in a good direction? At what point do you think that these things need to be stopped?

You keep insisting that you're not woke and somehow you always argue in favour of woke crap (white erasure which is part of CRT, radical gender ideology, etc...), you can see why one can't possibly believe you.

And yes, you're still a communist according to my previously declared definition.

Replies:   ystokes  Grey Wolf
ystokes 🚫

@John Demille

a stage where kids are being allowed and mostly encouraged to make decisions that they are not equipped to make that ruins their lives forever.

Or maybe just maybe the kid from committing suicide. But hey if they are gay why should people care.

Replies:   Remus2  John Demille
Remus2 🚫

@ystokes

Or maybe just maybe the kid from committing suicide. But hey if they are gay why should people care.

The mind of a child is very much impressionable. They may or may not grow up Gay. However, removing the choice of a ten year old to make the decision when their minds are more equipped to do so is extreme child abuse.
I wasn't even thinking about sex at that age, however the woke are forcing children that age to think about it.
If it were my child being spoken to like that, there would have been some violence forth coming from me.

I seriously doubt even the people pushing that crap would be OK with the school sending their children for surgery of any kind.
A child's first and best advocates are the parents. Not the teachers and or government.

John Demille 🚫

@ystokes

Or maybe just maybe the kid from committing suicide.

Why is the kid thinking of suicide? Who is putting these thoughts into under 10 kids' heads? Why are schools teaching 6 year-olds about sex?

I don't know how old you are, but if you're older than 30, think back to when you were growing up, how many of your class mates said they were trans? How many boys committed suicide in your school because they weren't allowed to dress like girls and behave like girls? How many kids in your youth committed suicide because of their gender confusion?

Don't you think that schools pushing this shit has something to do with this huge wave of 'trans kids'? If a 7 year-old boy says to you I'm a girl, ask him what does he mean by that and you'll find the answer to be completely benign. Kids can't consent to sexual things. Kids can't consent to puberty blockers and hormone therapy.

Prepubescent kids don't think of sex. They don't think who they're attracted to because they're not attracted to anybody or anything yet. How would a child who doesn't have any sexual feelings know what they want in something they've yet to experience?

These kids are being indoctrinated in schools. They're being abused and manipulated. They are being fed into a machine that preys on them. Big Pharma is using them to sell ever more drugs.

The real solution is to uproot all of the current education system and start over. They're not fit to educate kids anymore. Why would schools focus on kids sexuality more than they focus on their education? The education systems are now churning out confused illiterate kids. Why?

My ten year old had to do an assignment that made him read a book titled 'Princess Kevin' and had to explain why Kevin behaves like a girl. Another of his assignments was to draw the LGBTQ+ flag and explain what each colour meant. Why are these even lessons for 10 year-olds? I'm sending my kid to learn to read and do math and science, not to learn about butt sex. Did you know that one of his lessons was how to do drugs safely with their friends?

Yeah, my kid is now safely back in Iraq away from the fucking groomers.

But hey if they are gay why should people care.

People shouldn't. Schools definitely shouldn't. Let them grow up and decide for themselves what they're attracted to once they go through puberty.

Grey Wolf 🚫

@John Demille

As you are prone to things like TL;DR or 'I didn't read it, because it's a lot of words, and I know they all say the same thing even though I didn't read it', I'll start off by saying: we disagree, the way you use words makes your comments meaningless, you've blatantly mischaracterized me and what I've said, many of your comments are factually incorrect, and I'm not likely to engage much more with someone who neither uses words in a meaningful fashion nor accuses me of things I've never done nor advocated for.

That said:

Yes, I know. According to your 'woke means everything I hate' definition, I'm woke. That's fine.

And according to your 'a communist is anyone I don't like' definition, I'm a communist. That's also fine.

According to the usual and common definition of a communist, I'm not. Since there is, by this point, no real definition of 'woke', I don't see any real reason to worry about it.

I have never, at any point, at any time, anywhere, advocated for 'white erasure'. That is a flat-out lie. Of course, since I can't trust your definitions, perhaps 'white erasure' means 'being nice to white people'. I'm certainly guilty of arguing in favor of being nice to white people, so perhaps you're right after all.

I would be very curious to see where you're finding schools teaching six and seven year olds 'porn literacy'. My suspicion is that there would be massive outrage and prosecutions, yet ... nothing. It sounds as if it's made up out of whole cloth.

If, in fact, they are teaching 'porn literacy' (and not some entirely unrelated thing that you're just calling 'porn literacy'), I agree that that's a bad thing. On the other hand, since your definition of 'a communist' is radically unlike the usual definition, my suspicion is that your definition of 'porn literacy' might be 'anything that says biological males and biological females aren't the same', but it also might be 'kittens are cute'. Once you play the 'words mean whatever I say they mean them to mean' game, everything is suspect, after all.

Also, and FYI, I'm opposed to any transgender surgical intervention for anyone under eighteen, as well as any irreversible hormone treatments. However, reversible hormone treatments are a better solution than requiring additional surgery in the future, and most are reversible.

You're playing an interesting shell game with 'not allowed to drink' and so forth. Yes, someone under a specific age is not allowed to purchase alcohol, sign contracts, etc. However, their parents are allowed to provide them alcohol, sign contracts on their behalf, and so forth.

So, if your argument is that children under eighteen shouldn't be able to get medical intervention on their own, why yes, I agree! They shouldn't. There are cases where I would disagree, but not on transgender issues.

However, with the consent of their parents and their doctor, that's a totally different thing, just as it is with alcohol and contracts. Are you suggesting that parents not be allowed to make medical decisions for their children? Not be allowed to provide them alcohol?

You do know that children under eighteen are allowed to make decisions that will affect their whole future literally every day, don't you? Children under eighteen drive without adult supervision. They purchase and consume food and beverages without adult supervision. They decide which colleges to apply for (and therefore ultimately attend). They decide which classes to take, when and how much to study, how much effort to put into school, and whether to try to get a part-time (or sometimes a full-time) job. They decide whether or not to jump off of bridges or buildings or stand in front of trains or any of a myriad ways of committing suicide. They decide whether or not to commit crimes.

The notion that children under eighteen don't make decisions with life-altering consequences literally every day is one that only someone who has never raised a child could come up with. Having raised children, it's impossible to miss the vast number of things a child could do in any given instant that might have life-altering consequences.

Taking some decisions away or requiring parental advice and consent is perfectly rational, and - again - I'm not advocating allowing children to make surgical decisions or the like on their own. That said, it's absurd to claim that somehow children don't make major life-changing decisions. We do, and it's impossible to prevent that from happening.

We do not 'have laws which prohibit even writing stories about underage kids having sex'. SoL has a policy about that, but that policy has grandfathered-in exceptions. If those stories were illegal, no such exceptions would exist.

No more responses about words. The title of this thread is perfectly appropriate to the way you use words. If you say 'kitten', it might mean 'aardvark', or 'spaceship', or 'flying spaghetti monster'. You've made that abundantly clear. No definition can be counted on to resemble what I or anyone else might expect the word to mean.

Very few responses on anything else. You've utterly and completely mischaracterized me and what I've written, and I'm fairly certain that it was done knowingly (since, by the usual and common definitions of 'communist' or 'white erasure', I've never once given either any support, and either you must know that or your reading comprehension skills must be near zero).

There's no point in engaging with someone who will redefine a word at the drop of a hat, or who maliciously mischaracterizes others.

Replies:   John Demille
John Demille 🚫
Updated:

@Grey Wolf

If, in fact, they are teaching 'porn literacy' (and not some entirely unrelated thing that you're just calling 'porn literacy'), I agree that that's a bad thing.

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1570089970744041474

I had to sign papers to pull my own 6 year old son from sex-ed class and go pick him up from school during that class otherwise he stays in class. So I know first hand.

Follow libsoftiktok on twitter for post after post about this shit. Don't take my word for it.

As for the rest of your post, anybody can scroll up and read your arguments in support of radical gender ideology and the previous thread where you agree with replacing white people with people of colour.

You keep denying the woke label and yet you keep supporting their shit. You're either a liar or a useful idiot for them.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Grey Wolf
Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@John Demille

You keep denying the woke label and yet you keep supporting their shit.

Standard tactic. Invent a label for themselves and as soon as the other side starts using that label, create a new label and deny that they ever used the original label and claim that the original label was imposed on them by the other side.

The current label here is "anti-racist". A complete oxymoron given the views of the people who use it.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf 🚫

@Dominions Son

And, in turn, standard tactic in the other direction: take a label, redefine it to mean things that it never meant, then pretend to be surprised when people won't embrace the new definition.

Or take a phrase such as 'anti-racist' and attempt to define it in a way in which it becomes an oxymoron, and then pretend that people who are actually opposed to racism aren't.

Semantic games, all the way around. 'Woke' now means 'people who believe in things I don't like that are anywhere to the left of the John Birch Society.' 'Anti-racist' now means 'racist.'

If this were the 1850s, the people who are redefining words would be jumping up and down claiming that it was the abolitionists who were the real racists and the slaveowners who weren't because the abolitionists were arguing in favor of 'white erasure', or some similar nonsense.

Grey Wolf 🚫

@John Demille

For the record, I'm oppposed to 'porn literacy' in elementary schools.

As for the rest of your post, anybody can scroll up and read your arguments in support of radical gender ideology and the previous thread where you agree with replacing white people with people of colour.

Yet you can't quote one single example of my actually supporting 'radical gender ideology', nor can you quote one single argument where I argue for 'replacing white people with people of colour', except by bending the terms so much that they're recognizable.

I accept the woke label from you, because, to you, woke means 'Anything John Demille disagrees with.' By that standard, I am woke.

By most other standards, I am not, apparently. If 'woke' means gender-affirming surgery for minors, I am 'not woke'. If woke means endorsing 'white replacement', I am 'not woke'. If woke means explicit porn for elementary students, I am 'not woke'.

If woke means treating people with respect and trying to make life better for everyone (both trans and cis people, both white and non-white people) without prompting one over the other, than I'm 'woke'. I will proudly support making life better for everyone.

You, however, have accused me of saying many things that I have not said, of holding positions opposite of those that I hold, and of being things that I am not. You are, therefore, definitely a liar. Whether you are an idiot, useful or not, is a source of conjecture.

Remus2 🚫

@Grey Wolf

Allowing people who have gender identities which do not conform to their biologically determined sex to participate in the sorts of activities cis-gender people participate in (including sports): good.

There is a reason biological genders were separated in sports. All the word smithing in the world doesn't make that go away.
Biological women don't have the muscle mass of biological men. Nor the skeletal structure to support it.
The woke would very much like converted men to compete as that helps make the physical inequality lines blur enough to support their agenda.
Conversely, those same idiots would have us believe men can get pregnant.

The word salad they make is riff with hypocrisy. Somewhere deep inside, they have to know what they are saying is pure bullshit.

Replies:   helmut_meukel  Grey Wolf
helmut_meukel 🚫

@Remus2

Conversely, those same idiots would have us believe men can get pregnant.

Hmm, an abdominal pregnancy is theoretically possible when induced by surgically implanting a blastocyst.
However as Bioethicist Glenn McGee said "the question is not 'Can a man do it?'. It's 'If a man does have a successful [ectopic] pregnancy, can he survive it?'"

HM.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Remus2
Dominions Son 🚫

@helmut_meukel

It's 'If a man does have a successful [ectopic] pregnancy, can he survive it?'"

Considering that an ectopic pregnancy is considered life threatening for women, probably not.

Remus2 🚫

@helmut_meukel

Surgical implants are not the same as a natural pregnancy.

Grey Wolf 🚫

@Remus2

Did you somehow miss the next line in what I wrote:

Having only two categories and putting people with statistically vastly different biochemistry in with other people: bad.

I believe we are having an agreement, you just missed it.

If there are only 'boys' and 'girls' sports, that is the problem, and there are going to inevitably be issues. That doesn't mean that it's fine to say 'because we only have two things, and this person doesn't fit neatly into either one, we should just not let them participate at all.'

There's ample research showing that extracurricular activities in general, and sports in particular, are a good thing for children. Why should a child (who is already outside of the mainstream) be, in addition, denied access to things other children have access to? Why would that be a good thing?

I agree that preserving biological females' ability to compete and participate is at least as important as preserving transgender people's ability to compete and participate. That doesn't mean that the 'solution' is to simply exclude transgender people.

Consider the following piece of logic: people of race X are better at sports than people of race Y. If people of race X are allowed to participate, people of race Y will never be able to compete. Therefore, we'll simply exclude all members of race X. That'll make it fair!

Would you accept that logic? If you wouldn't, then you shouldn't accept simply excluding transgender people, either.

Solve the actual problem - don't create a false dichotomy and use it to justify discrimination.

DBActive 🚫

@Grey Wolf

Allowing people who have gender identities which do not conform to their biologically determined sex to participate in the sorts of activities cis-gender people participate in (including sports): good.

Having only two categories and putting people with statistically vastly different biochemistry in with other people: bad.

How do you reconcile these two points? Biological males are vastly different than biological females, but you want biological males who claim to be women to compete with biological females.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf 🚫

@DBActive

When did I ever say that I want biological males who claim to be women to compete with biological females? If I did, that was a mistake, and I apologize for the error, but I'm pretty certain I never said that.

The way you reconcile those two points is to get rid of the original premise that there are merely two types of people. Add a 'recreational' division, or two, or three. We do this all the time with things like marathons and the like. Create non-competitive categories.

Biological females should absolutely be able to compete with one another, free of having to compete with people with vastly different biochemistries. I agree with that. That's important.

The solution, however, isn't to say 'these kids get to participate, and these kids get to participate, but you? You don't get to participate at all.' In what way is that a good solution?

Even if one gets to the point where limited resources force a compromise, the compromise could be that everyone gets to participate (swim, for instance), but the results are issued in multiple categories (again, similar to a marathon). Biological females are only compared to biological females.

Yes, this doesn't work for team sports, but similar compromises can and should be sought. If resources really are so constrained that there is no good solution, the minimum answer should be, 'I'm sorry, we can't do that, but you can do this, or this, or this instead,' not 'We have 'boys' and 'girls', and you're not either, so go sit over there.'

Resources are always going to be an issue (well, unless we get to 'the singularity', anyway). Most schools in the US don't offer e.g. curling, because it's not common here and most don't have a handy ice rink. If you're a kid who's brilliant at curling, you miss out. Sorry. Limited resources.

But, within that, the drive should be to look for solutions that allow as many kids as possible to participate, should they wish to, not justify why some kids should be denied the opportunity to participate.

Replies:   DBActive
DBActive 🚫
Updated:

@Grey Wolf

But all kids do have the chance to participate - biological females with other biological female and, in most states they can also compete with biological males if they are good enough. Biological males can compete with other biological males.

There are no people (except a miniscule number- about 0.018% of people born truly intersex) who aren't either biologically male or female.

The entire issue revolves around biological boys and men competing with biological females by claiming that they have somehow transformed themselves. They chose to compete as women, no one is barring them from competing as men.

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf 🚫

@DBActive

That's potentially a viable solution, but it would need serious definitional work, and there are still issues with facilities and so forth.

No matter what we're doing, we're going to be balancing rights, and balancing rights is hard. Suppose person X was born female, identifies as male, and has been presenting as a male for years. No one at their current school is aware that X is biologically female.

X wants to participate in cross-country running. Is it really a viable argument to say that X needs to participate s a girl when X is widely seen as a boy? Does being involved in extracurricular activities require one to give up any modicum of privacy?

Are you going to send X (who identifies as male) into the girls' locker room and expect the girls to be fine with someone who dresses and acts male and may have male secondary sexual characteristics being in their locker room?

What if X has been prescribed male hormones? Is that a level playing field?

As long as you maintain a strict two-category system, you're going to keep struggling with issues like that. I fully agree that some problems simply can't be solved (a multi-tier system might also involve waiving privacy, for instance), but we should be able to better than forcing either outcome one, where people compete unequally due to different bodies, or outcome two, where people who present 100% as the opposite gender are competing with people with similar bodies.

Simply because 'biological boys competing with biological girls is unfair' (and I will agree that it is, and am not advocating for that happening) does not mean that 'forcing people to compete as something they are not' is a viable solution. We should be able to do better than that.

Replies:   DBActive
DBActive 🚫

@Grey Wolf

Your arguments make zero sense.
1. It is impossible that people would not known she is a biological female - Twelfth Night is not the real world where people change clothes in the presence of others They don't take showers in school anymore but they do change into uniforms in the presence of others.
2. So it's better to send biological males into female locker rooms? That happens everyday. The courts have decided that the women have no rights in the matter.
3. Supplemental hormones, aside from being dangerous, cannot transform basic body structures. Thay can make women, if they survive the cancer, stronger, more muscular than other women, but not men.
4. I have no clue what your second to last paragraph means.
5. You are for allowing people (biological males) to compete as something they are not. And restricting them to competition against other biological persons is "forcing them to compete as what they are."

Replies:   Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf 🚫
Updated:

@DBActive

1. There are dozens of cases where other students haven't known until they're 'outed'. Shy kids have (for decades) known how to avoid being seen in school. Many schools have created environments where everyone changes in private because there are far more concerns about allowing students to see each other naked (or nearly naked) than simply transgender students. If nothing else, consider the fact that virtually every high school student carries a camera with them at all times. Having kids with cameras around naked or nearly naked kids is a recipe for disaster (and a massive lawsuit against the school).

Both of my kids reliably inform me that not once in their entire school careers did another student see them naked or in just their underwear during school hours.

2. It's better to send people into the least disruptive environment, all things considered. There are extremely few incidents where trans people have attacked anyone else. Forcing people to use the 'biologically appropriate' facilities is a recipe for disaster - there are far more incidents where trans people have been attacked than there are cases of trans people attacking anyone else.

3. Quite a lot of sources disagree with you. There's a reason that supplemental hormones are banned for most sports. Plus, you're also splitting hairs. Hormones may not make a trans-woman into the best biologically male athlete around, but they may allow a woman to beat a large number of not-the-best biologically male athletes along the way to losing.

4. It means that there are more than two options. We don't have to take bad option number one (let biological males compete as females) or bad option number two (force transgender people to out themselves, use the locker room that doesn't correspond to their identity, and be the lone (or one of a very few) girls running with the boys, or boys running with the girls). Why do you accept that there are only two bad choices and we have to pick one or the other?

5. No, I'm not. I've said I'm not. I don't know how else to phrase it other than "I am not for allowing people (biological males) to compete as something they're not." Cis-women shouldn't have to compete against trans-women, we agree. But that doesn't mean that trans-women should therefore have to compete against men.

Meanwhile, you are (as best as I can tell) for forcing people (transgender men and women) to compete as something they're not or be excluded all-together. Restricting them to competition against other (similar) biological persons is not "forcing them to compete as what they are", it's forcing them to compete as something that they're not. A trans woman is not a man.

You are, of course, free to disagree - some people do - but that means we might as well end the discussion, because how can you have a discussion about being fair to trans people if one side takes the viewpoint that trans people don't really exist, or that they (and not the trans person) has the right to define who the trans person is and is not?

If person X has transitioned (whether or not to the point where 'no one knows'), that's not something they did easily. They've probably taken a different name, they may be taking hormones, they're wearing different clothing, likely presenting themselves differently in terms of how they talk, and so forth. Having 'Adam' compete along with a bunch of girls is not forcing him to compete as what he is, it's an extremely disrespectful way of trying to force him to be what he isn't. The same is true of 'Eve' competing with the boys. It's the same thing as referring to them with the wrong gender or the wrong name - it's rude and disrespectful. While I support the right of individuals to be rude and disrespectful, I don't think it's sensible to build into our educational system the principle that it's fine to be systematically rude and disrespectful to any particular group of students. I would no more accept a teacher who misgendered or misnamed a transgender student than I would accept a teacher who misgendered or misnamed a cisgender student. Name-calling students or intentionally misgendering them intentionally is wrong, period. Would you accept someone calling a cis-male student named 'Sam' 'Miss Samantha'? Would you accept that teacher making 'Sam' do everything with the girls? If not, why would you accept doing the same thing to a trans-man in the area of extracurriculars?

By the way, age has been slippery throughout. I'm referring to high school students, so it should be 'boys' and 'girls', but college students are obviously included (and college students can easily be passing for the other gender with no one the wiser), and most (but not all) of the principles are the same.

In my opinion, we do not need to pick one of two bad alternatives. If we did, I'd have to pick the one that allows biological females to not compete against biological males, so in that sense 'you win', but that's only because you've imposed a false binary choice. A solution that says 'you can participate only if you accept conditions that may be humiliating and dangerous and which disrespect you as a person' is not a good solution, in my opinion.

Replies:   John Demille
John Demille 🚫
Updated:

@Grey Wolf

Yet you can't quote one single example of my actually supporting 'radical gender ideology',

How about this whole post you lying communist?

Redsliver 🚫

@Marius-6

Staying in the shallow end of the politics this time. But I do want to talk about the language.

I stand by the quote:

Language is gonna change, irregardless of your attempts to literally lock it away in the tallest tower. Obvs.

- Welcome to Night Vale

The split infinitive is the piece de resistance!

Language changes with use and negotiation. Brute force advancements of language seldom make the grand changes to the language. However, they do create jargon.

I'm using jargon to mean "subculture specific definitions".

There's a lot of jargon in professional cultures, especially true in military cultures. Using jargon signifies your expertise and/or your tribe.

Jargon often uses the same words but with a different dictionary than everyday speech.

Example:
Cathartic means relaxing in everyday speech. Talk to a pharmacist and cathartic is a drug encourages urination.

Attempting to force the normies (those outside of your subculture) to adopt a specific culture's jargon leads to misunderstandings, at best, and fighting at worst. This is especially true when jargon is murky or the subculture refuses to define their jargon clearly.

Jargon is a useful tool if you're willing to provide the definition you are using for you words.

Example:

Woke - adjective - The anti-liberal idea that judging a person as an individual and trying to colorblindly look past that person's relationship to demographic affiliations has failed to eradicate all bigotry. Therefore, our society must reapproach civil rights in a way where race, ethnic, gender, and sexual affiliations are considered before(*) the content of the person's character.

(*)Before is the least charitable interpretation of woke, but the one I find applies most often. However, it could also be written as:

Therefore, our society must reapproach civil rights in a way where race, ethnic, gender, and sexual affiliations are considered alongside(*) the content of the person's character.

When I use the term woke, I am using this definition.

Also, when I use the word aardvark, I am referring to all cute and cuddly mammals. Therefore all kittens, but Mr Prince, are aardvarks.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl 🚫

@Redsliver

piece de resistance

I personally prefer it if the piece doesn't resist too much. It's so messy otherwise ...

Replies:   Redsliver  Dominions Son
Redsliver 🚫

@StarFleet Carl

Scared of a little mess? Why do you hate fun?

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl 🚫

@Redsliver

Scared of a little mess? Why do you hate fun?

The pigs get too fat cleaning up after the mess.

Dominions Son 🚫

@StarFleet Carl

I personally prefer it if the piece doesn't resist too much.

Join the Resistance. Ohm!

DBActive 🚫

@Marius-6

Last week, in Ireland, a Teacher at a Catholic school was sent to Prison for refusing to proclaim that a Male is a "female" in an ostensibly "Free Nation"

Just ot correct this. It wasn't a Catholic school. It's a Church of Ireland (Anglican) school.

richardshagrin 🚫

@Marius-6

Language changes seems wrong to me. Decimate used to mean ten percent casualties, Romans used it when they executed that many of their soldiers who had been very bad. Now it just means kill a lot. Like December was the 10th month, decem had a definite meaning at least in Latin. I am surprised decimate didn't turn out to mean having ten mates.

"decΒ·iΒ·mate
/ˈdesΙ™ΛŒmāt/

verb
1.
kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of.
"the project would decimate the fragile wetland wilderness"
2.
HISTORICAL
kill one in every ten of (a group of soldiers or others) as a punishment for the whole group.
"the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers"

Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)

@Marius-6

Thread locked.

You guys seem to be intent on making me use the banning tool.

I really hate banning people...

Topic Closed. No replies accepted.

Back to Top

 

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...

Storiesonline is for adult entertainment only. By accessing this site you declare that you are of legal age and that you agree with our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.


Log In