Oh I agree they're largely interchangeable @VorZakone just seems to have an unhealthy focus on reproductive organs so I'm using male/female in a scientific sense and woman, man, boy, girl in a gender based sense (i.e. based on masculine or feminine characteristics). These days it's a reasonable distinction because someone who appears to be a man may not be biologically male, for instance.
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Oh I agree they're largely interchangeable @VorZakone just seems to have an unhealthy focus on reproductive organs so I'm using male/female in a scientific sense and woman, man, boy, girl in a gender based sense (i.e. based on masculine or feminine characteristics). These days it's a reasonable distinction because someone who appears to be a man may not be biologically male, for instance.
I think it’s easiest just to go man/woman, boy/girl and add cis/trans if needed. Male/female is just an alternative to boy/girl/man/woman that doesn’t bring age into it (or the need to be human!)
I didn't write that it's weird to be precise, or that you are making any demands. I honestly don't know what you mean by that.
Yeah, I agree that most people use "woman" to cover both the gender and the sex aspect, because that is how things have been done for the vast the majority of peoples lives. And I also think that by and large, people are not really that aware of or sensitive to transgender people. The traditional usage of woman also remains accurate in most cases, since trans people account for a small share of the population.
But if you believe that a trans woman is a woman, then the word no longer accurately translates to "adult female". In cases where you need to make sure that you describe the sex correctly, then "adult female" would be the way to go instead of "woman". Unless we find a new single word as shorthand for that, but I'd argue we don't need one.
How would you define the word "woman"? If you could change the dictionary definition, what would you write?
True, I was trying hard to avoid bringing cannibals plants into the discussion!
I do like the focus on reproductive characteristics for definitions of male and female, though. For the J.K. Rowling types who are stuck on biology, like.
To clarify: Oxford Dictionary is wrong here?
Boy: a male child.
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=boy&tl=true
I would say a human being with feminine appearance and characteristics.
And what are those, in your personal view?
Not wrong but maybe needs a rethink due to years of interchangeability of sex based terms and gender based terms. A masculine child seems better to me for boy as it refers to their characteristics.
It can be appearance, mannerisms, and a number of other things that society has defined as feminine.
@VorZakone
Define:
1. species
2. covalent and ionic bonds
3. planet
These are the most basic concepts of biology, chemistry, and astronomy. Surely there must be a clear, unambiguous definition that can be applied universally for these basic things!
Define:
1. species
2. covalent and ionic bonds
3. planet
These are the most basic concepts of biology, chemistry, and astronomy. Surely there must be a clear, unambiguous definition that can be applied universally for these basic things!
From a purely language-based perspective (it was my degree and I once did an entire essay on the differences between the words "aim" and "goal") the 'problem', if we're rejecting a focus on biology, that "woman" (and "man") now has no definition.
Currently, "woman" is defined as something like "adult female human being" and "man" means "adult male human being". We don't need to look at "adult", "human" or "being" for this purpose, but a number of dictionaries will then have the differentiating definition of "female" and "male" with a focus on biological characteristics. If we reject the biology for the definition, then we need something else, as the other relevant definitions of "female" and "male" just make it circular (something like "woman or girl"/"man or boy").
I've always had a descriptivist view of language so don't really care how or why people use words as they use them, but if "woman" encompasses both cis- and trans- women (fair enough) then the prefixes should be redundant. It's for someone far cleverer than me to sort out, but this is where the crux of the 'debate' lies. It's not one I'm particularly interested in because in the majority of cases we know what people mean from the context in which they say it ("literally" now including the definition for "figuratively" a prime example).
Is this not where the issue lies? Both "feminine appearance and characteristics" are extremely subjective (the latter in particular), and will vary from culture to culture, country to country, even generation to generation. There is also the fact that there will be plenty of examples of women who, by whatever standards you use to define those two things, match neither, but are women nonetheless.
Well, what does the dictionary say? This is what Cambridge Dictionary says on planet.
For the record, my argument isn't "just blindly follow the dictionary". And I'm sure there are words out there with multiple definitions. The word "intelligence" also refers to collected information usually obtained through digital or physical espionage. My pet peeve is actually that I would like to have a different word for that.
Yeah we'll always have the Marjorie Taylor Greene's to contend with but language evolves and a less sexually overt definition of man and woman that considers characteristics seems like a reasonable compromise, at least for this issue.
Save male and female for the biological reference (i.e. what's under the hood) and use man and woman for what it says (or appears to say) on the tin.
It seems probable that we're simply at a point where the dictionary definitions have not yet caught up with modern usage. It's a common misconception that dictionaries are there to dictate language use, and if it's not in the dictionary, it's somehow wrong. The reality is that they record it and move with the times. It's the reason why certain definitions have an "archaic" tag next to them, and why others will have a "colloquial" tag next to them.
As I said to Pogue, we've seen "literally" adopt the definition for "figuratively" in recent years because of people like Jamie Redknapp using it to mean things that are not actually literal. I think, as we've demonstrated in this thread, there's a difficulty in avoiding circular or exclusive definitions when lay-people like us try and come up with it ourselves.
Agreed, this is definitely one of those times.
Well, what does the dictionary say? This is what Cambridge Dictionary says on planet.
For the record, my argument isn't "just blindly follow the dictionary". And I'm sure there are words out there with multiple definitions. The word "intelligence" also refers to collected information usually obtained through digital or physical espionage. My pet peeve is actually that I would like to have a different word for that.
That definition includes Pluto and doesn't really rule out asteroids. According to NASA, the definition has changed over time and is still in debate.
The definition of species has changed over time. The textbook definition taught to students is meaningless for the overwhelming majority of species on earth which reproduce asexually, as well as for some sexual species. Defining "species" to include them is probably impossible.
There are clear examples of covalent and ionic bonds taught in chemistry high school that completely break apart once you get enough polarity in a "covalent" compound.
Is it so difficult to imagine that this is also the case for a word like woman? That definitions may be context-dependent and change with time?
The bolded: as said by @Alex99 , it seems there currently is no definition of it. @Dr. Dwayne gave his version but that one is highly subjective.
I think with many concepts like this (whether it is "species" or it is "woman"), there are going to be many definitions which will be useful in their own specific contexts. I'm not sure time will solve this either - in the case of species, as we learn more, they get even harder to define.
I just remembered, when Matt Walsh and J K Rowling were going around saying "what is a woman", someone asked her to define a chair or table or something, and she produced a definition that could include horses. Something like that at any rate. Chairs and tables should be much simpler to define than concepts like gender or species, yet it couldn't be done.
Despite not having perfect clarity on what a chair is, everybody including J K and the person asking her, could look at a chair and a horse and know what each one is.
Yeah I'm definitely offering a modern interpretation that takes a gender based definition instead of one that combines gender and sex.
Psychological sex is a different level of complexity versus biological sex. I doubt we're anywhere near to understanding that.
Should "pregnant women" be replaced by "pregnant people" in your view?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/pregnant-people-gender-identity/620031/
Is cannibals a thing, or just a typo of cannabis?
Haha typo, of course! Probably auto correct doing me dirty.
I don't particularly care either way.
I can imagine it becomes a norm 20 years later or maybe it doesn't. As a cis man, I find it really hard to care about it. I have no idea how widespread the demand for this terminology is, and the same with the pushback to it.
Probably one tweet away from it. As with sex and gender, she doesn't seem to understand race and culture.
J.K using her platform to advocate for more women managers in football, given the majority are still cis men?
Nah, of course not. Just use it to direct her 14m followers to shit on a trans woman football manager… just for existing.
Does Rowling ever do anything else with her time?
How else is she supposed to spend her millions?
god she’s so fecking awful
Does she not have someone close to her who can tell her to just shut the feck up?
Does she not have someone close to her who can tell her to just shut the feck up?
It's such a shame. I used to really like the Harry Potter books as a kid. JKR should do just do what any decent billionaire does and drown herself in Chardonnay in the Côte d'Azur. Instead she's picking fights on fecking Twitter with people who have it hard enough as it is.
Makes me wonder what her agents/PR officer think of her online activities.
Makes me wonder what her agents/PR officer think of her online activities.
What a pathetic existence. Having all that money and influence and this is the hill she decided to die on...
I never liked Harry Potter as fantasy fiction is not my thing, but had quite a lot of admiration for her story being a single mother writing in a cafe. She did quite an amazing job making reading cool again amongst children in the late 90s with midnight queues outside shops and all sorts of side projects her books created in schools.
I think this turn of focus from her is pretty damn sad both in the meaning of the word being upsetting to those who grew up with comfort in her books but from the meaning of the word being quite pathetic to spend all your time on. She seems to pick out low hanging fruit comments by accounts with anime avatars to respond to as if they represent all trans people and then by extension act like a group of about 1% is an existential threat to her.
I wonder how much is just down to long standing resentment that she had to put J.K. instead of Joanne when the first Potter book came out because the publisher told her the wizard story is more likely to be popular with boys but a female name could put them off. I remember that being a story a long time ago.
I think this turn of focus from her is pretty damn sad both in the meaning of the word being upsetting to those who grew up with comfort in her books but from the meaning of the word being quite pathetic to spend all your time on. She seems to pick out low hanging fruit comments by accounts with anime avatars to respond to as if they represent all trans people and then by extension act like a group of about 1% is an existential threat to her.
I wonder how much is just down to long standing resentment that she had to put J.K. instead of Joanne when the first Potter book came out because the publisher told her the wizard story is more likely to be popular with boys but a female name could put them off. I remember that being a story a long time ago.
Im sorry, but dont you consider a being born with a penis and testicles or a vagina an biological key characteristic of being male or female? I know there is a tiny minority of intersex people but otherwise its pretty clear whether you are male or female to almost everyone. My birth certifact has me down as male. I didnt have to wait to puberty before someone determined that.
""What is the biological basis of being male and female?
A person with XX chromosomes usually has female sex and reproductive organs, and is therefore usually assigned biologically female. A person with XY chromosomes usually has male sex and reproductive organs, and is therefore usually assigned biologically male."
They are primary sex characteristics. So i can't see how they arent key.
Last edited:
No, I wait until they are capable of reproduction before I define them using those characteristics.
Boys and girls are fine terms. You are free to use whatever terms you like.
Genuinely. For the life of me I can’t understand how you can have that much money and the best way you see fit to enjoy your time is raging about the same thing on Twitter over and over and over.
That has to be some kind of mental illness.