As you might expect, I’m a big fan of words. I love reading them, I love crafting them, I love their shades of meaning and tone. But their true value is more utilitarian; words are our primary means of connection to a shared reality. They’re the means by which our knowledge is preserved. They’re the tools that govern our ability to think and communicate clearly.
It hews a little close to the bone. Women have been chattel, owned, controlled, for a very long time. The stronger gender has raped with abandon in celebration of war victory.
Just how do you expect a female to react to the encouragement - nay, forceful entry - into spaces claimed through long battles and endless arguments….with joyful acceptance? Please.
While I admit that at times the feminist movement has been brutally unfair to men, I do not believe that this excuses men in women’s prisons, men in women’s bathrooms, men in women’s sports competitions. Too hard fought, too damn fraught.
The trans movement has become a haven for traditional entitled misogynists who've figured out a way to claim unchallenged victimhood and more importantly, to convince at least some 'feminists' to accept unquestioned male authority.
Stage One: some people are intrinsically inferior to others and it's perfectly OK to exploit the inferior
Stage Two: there are no differences. Race and gender are oppressive social constructs. "Woke"
Stage Three: there are differences, they are real, but they don't represent inferiority and superiority
The big problem with stage two is that it's false. And it therefore has potential to collapse under the weight of its own falsehood back to Stage One. Women are not men, but trans women are. There is an element of continuum to race but there are distinct races, they are different, and not just culturally.
Vietnamese people coming into my room wrinkle their noses at the catbox smell yet I can stand right over it and not smell a thing. This is consistent.
Per usual, agree with Jen and Dave. That's why I'm an honorary TERF. And I never read Foucault or Derrida. But I think it was them all who understood that the language You use determines the reality You see. And, yeah, "Disinformation" would be better looked into by someone who wasn't partisan, if there were such a beast. 1984 indeed.
I think that is the objective of the purposeful corruption of language. America now has Minitrue (Disinformation Governance Board) straight out of Orwell's "1984" dystopia.
From the Dialogs of Plato, in Euthyphro the subject is hosiotes (piety). Plato presses Euthyphro to define piety. Euthyphro ultimately retreated without providing an answer. This type of impasse is all too common. How can you discuss or debate something undefined? How can discussion about women's or transexual rights be discussed with someone who cannot define what a woman is? There will just be a bunch of talking passed each other at best and insult laden BS at worst.
The root of the problem is that human reasoning is not in the first instance aimed at truth; it’s a social competence aimed at solidifying our reputation in our group. The corollary to that is that we are evolutionarily primed to be good at recognizing biases in others and bad at acknowledging our own.
This leads to this phenomenon where people believe they are polarized around questions of what is True, when really they are largely engaging in ingroup-outgroup coalitional behaviors.
Of course, the ultimate answer to this is empiricism. Which is why the current academic fad of radical scientific relativism is so toxic.
It hews a little close to the bone. Women have been chattel, owned, controlled, for a very long time. The stronger gender has raped with abandon in celebration of war victory.
Just how do you expect a female to react to the encouragement - nay, forceful entry - into spaces claimed through long battles and endless arguments….with joyful acceptance? Please.
While I admit that at times the feminist movement has been brutally unfair to men, I do not believe that this excuses men in women’s prisons, men in women’s bathrooms, men in women’s sports competitions. Too hard fought, too damn fraught.
My tiny baby brother
Has never read a book;
Knows one sex from the other
All he has to do is look.
—Irving Berlin, “Doin’ What Comes Natcherly” from “Annie Get Your Gun”
The trans movement has become a haven for traditional entitled misogynists who've figured out a way to claim unchallenged victimhood and more importantly, to convince at least some 'feminists' to accept unquestioned male authority.
Like the 'good little girls' of yore.
We're only in stage one and two of bigotry
Stage One: some people are intrinsically inferior to others and it's perfectly OK to exploit the inferior
Stage Two: there are no differences. Race and gender are oppressive social constructs. "Woke"
Stage Three: there are differences, they are real, but they don't represent inferiority and superiority
The big problem with stage two is that it's false. And it therefore has potential to collapse under the weight of its own falsehood back to Stage One. Women are not men, but trans women are. There is an element of continuum to race but there are distinct races, they are different, and not just culturally.
Vietnamese people coming into my room wrinkle their noses at the catbox smell yet I can stand right over it and not smell a thing. This is consistent.
Couldn'a said it better, Steve.
Per usual, agree with Jen and Dave. That's why I'm an honorary TERF. And I never read Foucault or Derrida. But I think it was them all who understood that the language You use determines the reality You see. And, yeah, "Disinformation" would be better looked into by someone who wasn't partisan, if there were such a beast. 1984 indeed.
I think that is the objective of the purposeful corruption of language. America now has Minitrue (Disinformation Governance Board) straight out of Orwell's "1984" dystopia.
From the Dialogs of Plato, in Euthyphro the subject is hosiotes (piety). Plato presses Euthyphro to define piety. Euthyphro ultimately retreated without providing an answer. This type of impasse is all too common. How can you discuss or debate something undefined? How can discussion about women's or transexual rights be discussed with someone who cannot define what a woman is? There will just be a bunch of talking passed each other at best and insult laden BS at worst.
The root of the problem is that human reasoning is not in the first instance aimed at truth; it’s a social competence aimed at solidifying our reputation in our group. The corollary to that is that we are evolutionarily primed to be good at recognizing biases in others and bad at acknowledging our own.
This leads to this phenomenon where people believe they are polarized around questions of what is True, when really they are largely engaging in ingroup-outgroup coalitional behaviors.
Of course, the ultimate answer to this is empiricism. Which is why the current academic fad of radical scientific relativism is so toxic.