chasw wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 7:10 pm
The English language is flexible. Due to its diverse origins, it easily changes with the times. The King's English is nothing more than a slightly out of date, but carefully pronounced version of the everyday speech of residents of London, Chicago and Brisbane. Accordingly, society's current hullaballoo and confusion about respecting a person's gender can, and I hope will, be solved with a simple linguistic convention.
I envision a trend in society to divide the total field of sex and gender-related referent terms into two distinct utterance categories: Sex and gender. Sex should refer to the biological place of an individual within H. sapiens' reproductive process. The total population can easily be divided into categories of female, male and intersex. Gender should refer to the personal sexual identity a person has chosen to pursue, spanning every possible gender name under the sun from straight man to straight women and beyond. Endless variety.
Thus, every person is free to acknowledge their biological sex, while also unabashedly adopting their choice of the many possible genders, or no gender at all for that matter. All humans should think of themselves as having both a sex name, commonly female and male, plus a gender name, commonly woman and man. Once this new convention is in wide use among English speakers, it can easily spread to other languages. We are condemned to freedom, we cannot avoid choosing a sexual identity of some kind, and being able to describe it to others, which is where language comes in. I'm tolerant of anyone's gender identity and I'm proposing a more logical way we can describe each other and avoid linguistic confusion. Thanks
nemos wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:04 pm
I divide the human self into three components:
- Biological - females and males and some with any deviations - the function of reproduction, nothing at all depends on the will, what you are born is what you die.
- Social - men and women and others - determine the norms of behavior that are instilled, so that anything is possible.
- Mental or spiritual (not sure if I chose the term correctly) - genderlessness - the part that elevates us to the "divine" level, body features or gender identity are irrelevant.
Sex and gender are the same thing. They are interchangeable.
So obviously not since we have TWO terms and not just one.
There is a sweet irony here by probably you are too dull to see it.
Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 2:54 pm
Now, in a society where it is unlawful to walk around naked in public, how are we suppose to distinguish man from woman when we have to cover our bodies?
I can usually spot a woman from a block away while out walking, no matter what she's wearing.
And when she sees you does she start to walk faster?
chasw wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 7:10 pm
The English language is flexible. Due to its diverse origins, it easily changes with the times. The King's English is nothing more than a slightly out of date, but carefully pronounced version of the everyday speech of residents of London, Chicago and Brisbane. Accordingly, society's current hullaballoo and confusion about respecting a person's gender can, and I hope will, be solved with a simple linguistic convention.
I envision a trend in society to divide the total field of sex and gender-related referent terms into two distinct utterance categories: Sex and gender. Sex should refer to the biological place of an individual within H. sapiens' reproductive process. The total population can easily be divided into categories of female, male and intersex. Gender should refer to the personal sexual identity a person has chosen to pursue, spanning every possible gender name under the sun from straight man to straight women and beyond. Endless variety.
Thus, every person is free to acknowledge their biological sex, while also unabashedly adopting their choice of the many possible genders, or no gender at all for that matter. All humans should think of themselves as having both a sex name, commonly female and male, plus a gender name, commonly woman and man. Once this new convention is in wide use among English speakers, it can easily spread to other languages. We are condemned to freedom, we cannot avoid choosing a sexual identity of some kind, and being able to describe it to others, which is where language comes in. I'm tolerant of anyone's gender identity and I'm proposing a more logical way we can describe each other and avoid linguistic confusion. Thanks
What a pile of dog shit. There is no such thing as 'gender identity'. It's pseudoscience at its absolute worst.
chasw wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 7:10 pm
The English language is flexible. Due to its diverse origins, it easily changes with the times. The King's English is nothing more than a slightly out of date, but carefully pronounced version of the everyday speech of residents of London, Chicago and Brisbane. Accordingly, society's current hullaballoo and confusion about respecting a person's gender can, and I hope will, be solved with a simple linguistic convention.
I envision a trend in society to divide the total field of sex and gender-related referent terms into two distinct utterance categories: Sex and gender. Sex should refer to the biological place of an individual within H. sapiens' reproductive process. The total population can easily be divided into categories of female, male and intersex. Gender should refer to the personal sexual identity a person has chosen to pursue, spanning every possible gender name under the sun from straight man to straight women and beyond. Endless variety.
Thus, every person is free to acknowledge their biological sex, while also unabashedly adopting their choice of the many possible genders, or no gender at all for that matter. All humans should think of themselves as having both a sex name, commonly female and male, plus a gender name, commonly woman and man. Once this new convention is in wide use among English speakers, it can easily spread to other languages. We are condemned to freedom, we cannot avoid choosing a sexual identity of some kind, and being able to describe it to others, which is where language comes in. I'm tolerant of anyone's gender identity and I'm proposing a more logical way we can describe each other and avoid linguistic confusion. Thanks
nemos wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 9:04 pm
I divide the human self into three components:
- Biological - females and males and some with any deviations - the function of reproduction, nothing at all depends on the will, what you are born is what you die.
- Social - men and women and others - determine the norms of behavior that are instilled, so that anything is possible.
- Mental or spiritual (not sure if I chose the term correctly) - genderlessness - the part that elevates us to the "divine" level, body features or gender identity are irrelevant.
Sex and gender are the same thing. They are interchangeable.
So obviously not since we have TWO terms and not just one.
There is a sweet irony here by probably you are too dull to see it.
Don't worry sculpy, no one is trying to stop you from cross-dressing. No one gives a shit what you wear. And as a man, this is really none of your fucking business. Women pose pretty much zero danger to men in men's spaces, but men in women's spaces is a different matter entirely, which is why women's spaces came about in the first place. Duh!
And what about these great thunking men 'winning' at women's sports?? How is THAT OK??
Only MEN could oppress women for thousands of years, and then turn around and cry that they are 'oppressed' and 'the most vulnerable group' just because they put on a dress and a bad wig! Go fuck yourselves. And the moronic traitorous female handmaidens who stand with these misogynistic AGP fuckwits can go fuck themselves too.
And it's no coincidence that the genderwoo wonkers and activists are the same people siding with a religion that is reknowned for its rabid hatred for and oppression of women.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 11:08 am
These wankers need to be kept the hell AWAY from children. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near them. EVER!
That speaker at the podium is definitely a woman, and a still photo of her would reveal a rather masculine visage. Interesting how the faces of some really old people become unidentifiable by sex in appearance, like age produces a third kind of face (they say it's the face you earn), not male or female. And to some degree even the bodies of men and women begin to take on the shape of old that makes sexual identity vague, if not a mystery.
The people in the audience ... yikes. Just shows that some people are looking for guidance in all the wrong places.
The old age of old age. I visted such an old couple recently, both in their 90's, not blood relations. Took some bakery treats. They look like brother and sister from living together for so long, and some of my grandkids look like them.
Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 2:54 pm
Now, in a society where it is unlawful to walk around naked in public, how are we suppose to distinguish man from woman when we have to cover our bodies?
I can usually spot a woman from a block away while out walking, no matter what she's wearing.
And when she sees you does she start to walk faster?
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."
Exactly. It was only used as an alternative to 'sex' because some people were too prudish to use the word 'sex', hence things like 'gender reveal' parties (US, of course). Does anyone really believe that they were to determine the 'self identity' of the baby? Insanity.
Right.
Can you picture these gender-ideologues trying to run a farm? "Gee, I have ten cows and no calves...I don't understand...two of my cows identify as bulls..."
You have already failed to undertand the simple concept in the opening post.
It's almost like you can't read.
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?
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.
Gender meant parts of speech? So like, if someone says "verb is one of the parts of speech", you could easily paraphrase that as "verb is one of the genders"?
I feel pretty confident that that's NOT what you mean, but you haven't provided enough words to come to any other conclusion. If that's not what you meant, you haven't told the whole story.
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?
It's an original usage, not an "artificial" one.
The artificial distortion of the term, using it in reference to human beings, was introduced much later, (by controversial sexologist, John Money, 1955) long after the referent of "gender" had already been established.
