before we start more gender related discussio - Forum

Private
International Star

wug wrote:

Anachronism wrote:

Snusmumrikken wrote:

Anachronism wrote:
I love you so much.

This is 100% inside my field of study I love languages

do you study linguistics?

This is the missing linking. Gender and sex are clearly real things, or else we wouldn't have terms like 'cuck' or 'soyboy' for feminine men and so on. It's just that it's so hard to really define them concretely or measure them, yet it doesn't mean it isn't real. I like how you mention their are too many entries to classify gender into one sole definition.

Gender is nuts. I don't even know what to think anymore.

Yep I study linguistics.

If I recall correctly, one of my lecturers said that perhaps there are something outside the world that will be able to come down here and explain us to ourselves. The human mind is perhaps to elaborate for humans to understand, the more we learn the less we truly understand. I think the debate is pointless, people have their own perception of how their surroundings are, they use words to describe the world they personally experience, there aren't two people in this world with the exact same view of the world. Sure we could go on and on and on about this but you can't fully make someone see things from your point of view.

Sex is the easiest of the two to define, but even their definitions omit variations and deviations. It's impossible. People struggle with understanding who themselves are, why do people try to understand and define others? I do it too, but it's clearly not easy and not without mistakes and errors.

Basil
Youtube Star

Basil wrote:

Yoko wrote:

Claire wrote:
OK, wait, let me be sure I understand:

A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, which is anyone who identifies as a woman, which is anyone who identifies as a woman?

What exactly are we identifying as though?????? How is this useful?

nobody is going to give u an actual answer is there a point to asking this any more

please give me some characteristics that you think define a woman that don't reduce her to her genitalia aka what we've been fighting against since the literal dawn of humanity.

it's 2018 i thought we moved past this sort of stuff in the 90s.

Account deleted

wrote:
alright, reading through this thread, hennastii and rosa makes some good points that i find myself agreeing w.

Basil
Youtube Star

Basil wrote:
also if you read my post, i did define what a woman is.

she is defined by herself, defined (against her will) by society, and she is also subject to the pain that all women face at the hands of the patriarchy.

Private
World Famous

Yoko wrote:
" defining 'male' vs 'female' is an impossible task "

Pavlov
International Star

Pavlov wrote:

Basil wrote:

ad0xa wrote:

Basil wrote:
but how can you bear eggs if you are missing ovaries? if you never bear any of the eggs you might carry inside of you?

what distinction do we truly need for women, that doesn't further subjugated them by being so gynocentric and putting the focus on, of all things, the ability to bear children? that's kinda why women have been oppressed throughout history.

It's not a word to describe women. It's a word to describe egg-bearers.

>we need a better word to describe women
>describe them as egg bearers
>not all women are part of this classification
>'it's not a word to describe women.'

??? i don't think it's a useful classification if it doesn't accomplish what we set out to do in the first place.

also, the distinction between a wasp with a stinger/without is that having a stinger is a part of ALL wasps, whereas what we are attempting to do is clarify between two subsets within the wasp group by a factor that should discriminate the two. i would think a better example would be ants; there is one queen, many queens are born but they are usually killed. what determines a true queen is her size. the queen has wings, the female workers do not. but the males also have wings. what do the queen and the workers share in common, beyond what we've designated as female? female workers never lay eggs.

defining 'male' vs 'female' is an impossible task, because they are constructs that we have built as a society, and all around us in nature (and society) we bear witness to the vast gradient that people/creatures can fall along.

you cant use other animals reproduction to define our own and that wasnt my intention, my point was that even if something is broken doesnt mean that its no longer the thing it was previous to being broken. if you need to find a meaning to human sexuality you have to use apes as an example as that is the closest we get to humans other than humans themselves

Private
Popstar

Gunshot wrote:
I can't get over the fact that someone logs into here just to discuss this subject matter, it's kind of creepy

Account deleted

wrote:

Yoko wrote:
" defining 'male' vs 'female' is an impossible task "

how do u define them

Private
World Famous

Claire wrote:

Basil wrote:
also if you read my post, i did define what a woman is.

she is defined by herself, defined (against her will) by society, and she is also subject to the pain that all women face at the hands of the patriarchy.

So a woman is a person who is subjected to pain under patriarchy?

Don't men also suffer from bad parts of patriarchy? Like toxic masculinity hurts men too, right? Are men women then?

Private
World Famous

Yoko wrote:

Basil wrote:

Yoko wrote:

Claire wrote:
OK, wait, let me be sure I understand:

A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, which is anyone who identifies as a woman, which is anyone who identifies as a woman?

What exactly are we identifying as though?????? How is this useful?

nobody is going to give u an actual answer is there a point to asking this any more

please give me some characteristics that you think define a woman that don't reduce her to her genitalia aka what we've been fighting against since the literal dawn of humanity.

it's 2018 i thought we moved past this sort of stuff in the 90s.

there is nothing wrong with being female. and being female is not just about genitalia. if you are female, your whole being is female.

if you refuse to acknowledge sex based oppression then you are not a feminist, quit kidding yourself

Private
World Famous

Claire wrote:

Annihilation wrote:
alright, reading through this thread, hennastii and rosa makes some good points that i find myself agreeing w.

What they said is nice and good and not wrong, but they never actually defined the word woman so I don't fully understand them.

Ad0xa
World Famous

ad0xa wrote:

Basil wrote:

ad0xa wrote:

Basil wrote:
but how can you bear eggs if you are missing ovaries? if you never bear any of the eggs you might carry inside of you?

what distinction do we truly need for women, that doesn't further subjugated them by being so gynocentric and putting the focus on, of all things, the ability to bear children? that's kinda why women have been oppressed throughout history.

It's not a word to describe women. It's a word to describe egg-bearers.

>we need a better word to describe women
>describe them as egg bearers
>not all women are part of this classification
>'it's not a word to describe women.'

??? i don't think it's a useful classification if it doesn't accomplish what we set out to do in the first place.

also, the distinction between a wasp with a stinger/without is that having a stinger is a part of ALL wasps, whereas what we are attempting to do is clarify between two subsets within the wasp group by a factor that should discriminate the two. i would think a better example would be ants; there is one queen, many queens are born but they are usually killed. what determines a true queen is her size. the queen has wings, the female workers do not. but the males also have wings. what do the queen and the workers share in common, beyond what we've designated as female? female workers never lay eggs.

defining 'male' vs 'female' is an impossible task, because they are constructs that we have built as a society, and all around us in nature (and society) we bear witness to the vast gradient that people/creatures can fall along.

" we need a better word to describe biological women "

That's the thing. Just bc the gender word is so loaded and people don't want to feel excluded we need a new word to describe the medical clinical definition. Not the gender word.

also " Adult worker wasps, which are all female, can sometimes lay eggs as well as the queen but these are not fertile and can only produce male wasps (drones). "

Account deleted

wrote:
im ???? so confused by many of the "answers" here

Private
World Famous

Rosa wrote:

Claire wrote:
OK, wait, let me be sure I understand:

A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, which is anyone who identifies as a woman, which is anyone who identifies as a woman?

What exactly are we identifying as though?????? How is this useful?

I don't know. Are you a woman, and if so, can you tell me specifically why? I'm sure some people who reflected on this a lot can. I don't know what the answer is, though. I'm not specifically asking you, but more in general.

Ad0xa
World Famous

ad0xa wrote:

Basil wrote:
also if you read my post, i did define what a woman is.

she is defined by herself, defined (against her will) by society, and she is also subject to the pain that all women face at the hands of the patriarchy.

So the soyboy's are basically women then?