Mr. Potato Head is now a eunuch
#81
(02-27-2021, 10:49 PM)MacPasquale Wrote:
(02-27-2021, 10:22 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(02-27-2021, 10:01 PM)MacPasquale Wrote: The gender and sex issues while they may intersect are separate issues.

This is not a universal opinion, even in a secular context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_ge...istinction
It is when we're talking about the ideological war that's going on today.   

The people we're debating on this issue take that for granted.  If we actually want to debate the issue we need to make the proper distinctions.  Even if we want to debate whether the distinctions are asinine we still have to make those distinctions.

Even Pinker, who identifies as a feminist(no pun intended) would still use the the terminology in order to debate those in Judith Butler's camp.

We cannot posit (or grant) a distinction that uses the term "gender" for anything outside of grammar; once you grant that "gender" indicates something that exists separate from biological sex, you've already lost the argument.
Dissolve frigus ligna super foco
large reponens atque benignius
     deprome quadrimum Sabina,
          O Thaliarche, merum diota.

Permitte divis cetera...
[-] The following 3 users Like Filiolus's post:
  • antiquarian, jovan66102, Paul
Reply
#82
(02-27-2021, 10:49 PM)MacPasquale Wrote: It is when we're talking about the ideological war that's going on today.   

The people we're debating on this issue take that for granted.  If we actually want to debate the issue we need to make the proper distinctions.  Even if we want to debate whether the distinctions are asinine we still have to make those distinctions.

Even Pinker, who identifies as a feminist(no pun intended) would still use the the terminology in order to debate those in Judith Butler's camp.

The other side already objects to terms like "biological woman" or "biological female".

They advertise pap smears for "trans-women". (Exactly what gets sent to pathology?)

They're eschewing "man" and "woman" for phrases like "birthing people", or "people who ovulate".

Adopting their language doesn't build a bridge. It just puts us on track to end up in the same padded cell as the other side, only 20 years behind them.
[-] The following 4 users Like ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • antiquarian, DNJC.org, Filiolus, jovan66102
Reply
#83
For some reason I can't reply to posts the normal way.

Filiolus,

While you're probably right, it's too late.  The distinction has already been made. 
 

CJAMP,

"Exactly what gets sent to pathology?"

Ball hair?
[-] The following 1 user Likes MacPasquale's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident
Reply
#84
(02-27-2021, 11:35 PM)MacPasquale Wrote: "Exactly what gets sent to pathology?"

Ball hair?

LOL.  This is fabulous.
Reply
#85
(02-27-2021, 11:35 PM)MacPasquale Wrote: For some reason I can't reply to posts the normal way.

Filiolus,

While you're probably right, it's too late.  The distinction has already been made. 

No. This is the root of the conflict. Before asking whether one’s gender might not match one’s sex, or whether one can change one’s gender, one must first determine what “gender” is. Not what the arbitrary dictionary definition is, but what “gender” is in reality. If you grant the left’s contention, you lose 100% of the time.

The fact that gender is nothing other than a grammar convention matters a great deal.
 
Quote:CJAMP,

"Exactly what gets sent to pathology?"

Ball hair?

Lol!
Dissolve frigus ligna super foco
large reponens atque benignius
     deprome quadrimum Sabina,
          O Thaliarche, merum diota.

Permitte divis cetera...
[-] The following 3 users Like Filiolus's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, jovan66102, Paul
Reply
#86
"Intersex": "inter" = between; "sex" =  categories based on reproduction, and there are two of them in humans. An intersex condition is not a new sex; it's a genetic anomaly, and such conditions (their effects) have been known about for millennia. Do a search for Peter Cantor's 12th c. De vitio sodomitico (On Sodomy), for ex. His knowing about such things as hermpahroditism didn't cause him to think there are more than two sexes.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • HailGilbert
Reply
#87
I remember a time we would ban people for far less an offense.
Reply
#88
(02-28-2021, 10:06 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I remember a time we would ban people for far less an offense.

What offense? Being a drunk dentist?
Dissolve frigus ligna super foco
large reponens atque benignius
     deprome quadrimum Sabina,
          O Thaliarche, merum diota.

Permitte divis cetera...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)