Gender

Cupressus said:
YEah, IBDaMan, gtf and Into the Night ALL have this mysterious alternate definition of what a "dictionary" is.
Click to expand...
Nothing 'mysterious' about it. Dictionaries don't define words. You are trying to argue that no word existed before dictionaries! :rofl2:
Cupressus said:
It's not only a tell that they are socks, it is, as you pointed out, absurd in the extreme.
Weird, eh?
Click to expand...
...and you believe The Sock telling you this. :laugh:
 
Into the Night said:
...and you believe The Sock telling you this. :laugh:
Click to expand...

No. Because unlike you I can reason for myself. Three people with a nearly unheard of bizarre redefinition of a word is a HUGE tell. I wish you understood probabilities better. But I bet the folks in Nevada would LOVE for you to visit Las Vegas.
 
Cupressus said:
The whole debate over "Gender vs Biological Sex" reminds me of the debate around "Planet" and the demotion of Pluto. A lot of people got bent when Pluto was demoted but they never stop to think that prior to 2005 there was no "technical definition" for what a planet was. It was a "common parlance word" that, as our ability to see with more detail out there, meant more and more things would be considered planets so they CODIFIED THE DEFINITION.

Same with "Gender". It has historically been a synonym for biological sex but only in an informal way. As we learn more about how different people experience the world we need to come up with a more "technical" definition. So, like using the word "planet", we take a pre-existing common parlance word and utilize it to be the social construct of what it means to be a man or woman or whatever.

In other words: it is NOT MEANINGFUL to obsess over the use of the word. It doesn't change the CONCEPT AT ALL.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. So the next time someone says my pronoun is "they" I'll be sure to mention, "...it is NOT MEANINGFUL to obsess over the use of the word. It doesn't change the CONCEPT AT ALL.". The concept of "they" is a reference to two more people not one. I fucking love agreement.
 
Cupressus said:
The whole debate over "Gender vs Biological Sex" reminds me of the debate around "Planet" and the demotion of Pluto. A lot of people got bent when Pluto was demoted but they never stop to think that prior to 2005 there was no "technical definition" for what a planet was. It was a "common parlance word" that, as our ability to see with more detail out there, meant more and more things would be considered planets so they CODIFIED THE DEFINITION.

Same with "Gender". It has historically been a synonym for biological sex but only in an informal way. As we learn more about how different people experience the world we need to come up with a more "technical" definition. So, like using the word "planet", we take a pre-existing common parlance word and utilize it to be the social construct of what it means to be a man or woman or whatever.

In other words: it is NOT MEANINGFUL to obsess over the use of the word. It doesn't change the CONCEPT AT ALL.
Click to expand...

There is no 'codifying a definition'.

The word 'sex' originally appeared in the English lexicon around the late 1400's, coming from the Latin 'sexus' or 'seco', meaning to partition or separate, as in dividing half the race. 'Sexus' refers to male or female in Latin. Since then, the concept has been extended to some animals and plants (around the 1500's).

The word 'gender' originally appeared in the English lexicon around the 1300's, again coming from Latin 'genus' and stemming from the root word 'gene-' which refers to birth or ability to procreate.

Using either word to refer the sex of the human species as 'man' or 'woman' is correct.

Neither word refers to anything else. It does not refer to 'identifying as' or any other similar concept.

Any attempt at redefinition is simply denying the origin and meaning of either word.

The Bible also makes use of these concepts, referring only to male and female. It also specifically warns against any other relationship and it's consequences.
 
Cupressus said:
No. Because unlike you I can reason for myself. Three people with a nearly unheard of bizarre redefinition of a word is a HUGE tell. I wish you understood probabilities better. But I bet the folks in Nevada would LOVE for you to visit Las Vegas.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't know English. You only know Liberal.
Now you deny probability and random number mathematics as well.

You will never win in a Las Vegas casino or any other casino using probabilities.

You cannot reason for yourself either. You just cut and paste, stealing other people's arguments. You deny philosophy as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top