If it’s the former, then you should know I don’t use that definition.
“Remember, language is descriptive.” You only need to know how I’m using it.
So, using my “recursive” definition, is it correct or not correct to call me a woman. Is it possible to derive an answer from the information given to you.
Assuming the word “good” actually means “bad”, then the statement is correct.
But I’m sure you still disagree that “good” actually means “bad”, because it isn’t helpful for describing what either of those words mean.
I believe you are prescribing a word, rather than letting it be descriptive. Furthermore, even if it was descriptive, I am not convinced it describes anything accurately, and is functionally useless because of its recursive nature.
In any case, can we say that your experiment wasn’t very good because we have failed to discern anything? Have you got any other experiments lined up for me?
Assuming the word “good” actually means “bad”, then the statement is correct.
This is perfectly simple to follow. I have no idea what this is meant to prove.
You can prescribe words. You just make an argument. For instance, when you tell people the thing you made is called a “Tesla.” You can also tell people your website is called “X,” and if people disagree, well, they prescribe the opposite then, don’t they?
I don’t “naturally follow from sociological norms that the site is called Twitter” as much as I just refuse to call it the other one. I am prescribing something here.
In any case, can we say that your experiment wasn’t very good
No, because you refuse to engage. You know what the correct answer is, I gave you a child’s problem, you just won’t say it.
I wasn’t asking you to agree with the definition, I was asking you to follow it through. You know, like a descriptivist.
If a woman must identify as a woman, then a person who says “I am not a woman” should not be called one. You’re in the category if you want to be, you’re not if you don’t. Simple. Easy. Much utility. This is exactly what people in my camp use it for.
I’ll point out, by the way, dictionaries provide a lot of useful context, but you cannot expect them to teach you the world. Words there depend on words for meaning. If you don’t know any single word, you can’t parse any of the meaning. If you don’t believe me, read a French dictionary (no translations) and see if you can parse out from the words alone what anything is.
The only way to parse meaning is to match words you see to experiences you have in life. This is actually how children learn languages. No child knows “the definition,” but they do know how to use the words.
He’s refusing to engage with me too because he’s a coward. It’s honestly pathetic. He started the fight with misogyny thinking it would be easy and now he’s embarrassed he’s being beaten by women so he’s refusing to try. Such a worm.
If a woman must identify as a woman, then a person who says “I am not a woman” should not be called one. You’re in the category if you want to be, you’re not if you don’t. Simple. Easy. Much utility. This is exactly what people in my camp use it for.
I don’t agree with this. What I’ve been trying to tell you.
I don’t identify as a man, I just do what’s expected of me socially as a man. I fit every conventional definition of man, so I believe that’s a very good descriptor and has utility. It helps that I fit the traditional role of a man too.
You mention kids learning what words mean through usage. So what is a child’s conception of a woman? It’s going to be based off roles within our society, not how someone feels.
It depends who raised that child. There are children currently raised by queer and trans people who have very different ideas of woman versus you. Children also tend to appreciate fairness and know not to name call, so respecting gender is pretty easy for them. They play pretend all the time so someone wanting to be something unexpected is definitely okay with kids.
That’s fine that you repress your gender to fit the status quo and traditional role of a man. Kinda like gender Stepford Wives. That’s allowed and probably won’t give you brain cancer later.
Some people like having gender euphoria and happy feelings about their gender, which they can come up with for themselves as their own ideal. We don’t need to make everyone cool suffer because of society’s lack of imagination.
You don’t identify as a man? So, if you did things that society expects of women, would you be… a woman… then? Look, the dispassion is admirable, I just wasn’t expecting you to be so loose about it.
So what is a child’s conception of a woman?
It’s gonna be faces of people they know along with liberal use of the word “woman” in their presence. I mean, do you understand an orange is like a banana the very first time you see one?
What are you trying to communicate or understand about someone when they say they are a woman? Will your answer change if you remember that your mom is included in that definition?
What specifically about their appearance tells you they are a woman? You’ve said it’s a useful descriptor. What about their appearance does ‘woman’ describe? You’re the one claiming “woman” is a descriptor. How so? Support your claim with specific examples.
Ps aren’t you embarrassed trying to weasel out of saying your actual opinion? Like I have transparently asked, we both know there are visual cues you’re using to define woman. The reason I’m guessing you refuse to list them, is that we know I can find a woman who doesn’t fit that mold and would still be defined by society as a woman. You’re a coward afraid of losing and intellectually dishonest.
Let’s try an experiment, hm.
“I am not a woman.”
Using the definition “a woman is someone who identifies as a woman,” would you call me a woman.
When you say “call you a woman”.
Do you mean, “would I personally agree with the definition?”, or “would I refer to you as a woman in public?”.
If it’s the former, then you should know I don’t use that definition.
And if someone asked me to refer to them as a woman, I would, no problems.
“Remember, language is descriptive.” You only need to know how I’m using it.
So, using my “recursive” definition, is it correct or not correct to call me a woman. Is it possible to derive an answer from the information given to you.
“Beer is good for your health”
Assuming the word “good” actually means “bad”, then the statement is correct.
But I’m sure you still disagree that “good” actually means “bad”, because it isn’t helpful for describing what either of those words mean.
I believe you are prescribing a word, rather than letting it be descriptive. Furthermore, even if it was descriptive, I am not convinced it describes anything accurately, and is functionally useless because of its recursive nature.
In any case, can we say that your experiment wasn’t very good because we have failed to discern anything? Have you got any other experiments lined up for me?
This is perfectly simple to follow. I have no idea what this is meant to prove.
You can prescribe words. You just make an argument. For instance, when you tell people the thing you made is called a “Tesla.” You can also tell people your website is called “X,” and if people disagree, well, they prescribe the opposite then, don’t they?
I don’t “naturally follow from sociological norms that the site is called Twitter” as much as I just refuse to call it the other one. I am prescribing something here.
No, because you refuse to engage. You know what the correct answer is, I gave you a child’s problem, you just won’t say it.
I’m not refusing to engage, I simply don’t see things the way you do.
I don’t think we’re likely to make much progress here I’m either direction.
You are.
I wasn’t asking you to agree with the definition, I was asking you to follow it through. You know, like a descriptivist.
If a woman must identify as a woman, then a person who says “I am not a woman” should not be called one. You’re in the category if you want to be, you’re not if you don’t. Simple. Easy. Much utility. This is exactly what people in my camp use it for.
I’ll point out, by the way, dictionaries provide a lot of useful context, but you cannot expect them to teach you the world. Words there depend on words for meaning. If you don’t know any single word, you can’t parse any of the meaning. If you don’t believe me, read a French dictionary (no translations) and see if you can parse out from the words alone what anything is.
The only way to parse meaning is to match words you see to experiences you have in life. This is actually how children learn languages. No child knows “the definition,” but they do know how to use the words.
He’s refusing to engage with me too because he’s a coward. It’s honestly pathetic. He started the fight with misogyny thinking it would be easy and now he’s embarrassed he’s being beaten by women so he’s refusing to try. Such a worm.
Yeah, it’s the anti-intellectualism that really gets me. Reeally bothers me when people refuse to concede even simple, obvious points.
It’s been funny reading your branches, too.
I don’t agree with this. What I’ve been trying to tell you.
I don’t identify as a man, I just do what’s expected of me socially as a man. I fit every conventional definition of man, so I believe that’s a very good descriptor and has utility. It helps that I fit the traditional role of a man too.
You mention kids learning what words mean through usage. So what is a child’s conception of a woman? It’s going to be based off roles within our society, not how someone feels.
It depends who raised that child. There are children currently raised by queer and trans people who have very different ideas of woman versus you. Children also tend to appreciate fairness and know not to name call, so respecting gender is pretty easy for them. They play pretend all the time so someone wanting to be something unexpected is definitely okay with kids.
That’s fine that you repress your gender to fit the status quo and traditional role of a man. Kinda like gender Stepford Wives. That’s allowed and probably won’t give you brain cancer later.
Some people like having gender euphoria and happy feelings about their gender, which they can come up with for themselves as their own ideal. We don’t need to make everyone cool suffer because of society’s lack of imagination.
Then you will forever misunderstand us.
You don’t identify as a man? So, if you did things that society expects of women, would you be… a woman… then? Look, the dispassion is admirable, I just wasn’t expecting you to be so loose about it.
It’s gonna be faces of people they know along with liberal use of the word “woman” in their presence. I mean, do you understand an orange is like a banana the very first time you see one?
What are you trying to communicate or understand about someone when they say they are a woman? Will your answer change if you remember that your mom is included in that definition?
I’m not trying to communicate or understand anything in particular when someone says they’re a woman.
Then what’s the point of using the word woman at all?
Because it is a useful descriptor.
What is it describing? Can you be more specific?
It may be describing the appearance of someone.
What specifically about their appearance tells you they are a woman? You’ve said it’s a useful descriptor. What about their appearance does ‘woman’ describe? You’re the one claiming “woman” is a descriptor. How so? Support your claim with specific examples.
Ps aren’t you embarrassed trying to weasel out of saying your actual opinion? Like I have transparently asked, we both know there are visual cues you’re using to define woman. The reason I’m guessing you refuse to list them, is that we know I can find a woman who doesn’t fit that mold and would still be defined by society as a woman. You’re a coward afraid of losing and intellectually dishonest.