Words worth?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
merseymouth
Posts: 2519
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am

Re: Words worth?

Post by merseymouth »

Hi again, Word definition please - Woman/Women? Not so easy now is it! :roll: :? :wink: .
So according to the views put forward by the "Trans" advocates the actual target of misogyny may indeed be defined as a man self identifying as a woman! Tricky when words get re-assigned :| IGICB MM
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: Words worth?

Post by Oldjohnw »

I don’t understand why some confusion over definitions of men and women should also confuse over the misogyny and subsequent criminality of a particular policeman. There were no confusions whatsoever in the gender of the policeman murderer or the young woman victim.

For my part, I am quite happy that men have a penis and women a cervix. There is a small number of people who have identified differently and have not had the corresponding surgery to which that definition does not apply.

Raab is a clown and as a lawyer and Lord Chancellor he really should be aware that very precise definitions of words matter.
Last edited by Oldjohnw on 7 Oct 2021, 3:55pm, edited 2 times in total.
John
User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 6001
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: Words worth?

Post by Audax67 »

Oh my aching...
Have we got time for another cuppa?
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Words worth?

Post by Jdsk »

merseymouth wrote: 7 Oct 2021, 9:28am Morning all, A simple question from an old, stuck in the past duffer. Why some people in these changing times insist that the meaning of words have changed so say get on with the new meaning! Yet they also hang on to the original singular meaning of a given word, hypocrisy or what?
I say this because the slating Dominic Raab has been given over the word "Misogyny".
An old duffer like me knows very well the original meaning of it, but when DR made a reply that attempted to include a greater degree of latitude. He has been confronted with people saying it can only ever apply to "Women"!
But as we are constantly bombarded with pressure on the meaning of a words that has been specific for eons? "WOMAN/WOMEN"?
One is now faced with words being extremely movable in meaning, with serious abuse being generated when people try to continue using the original word/meaning combination. The entire transgender agenda is dedicated to making chalk mean cheese, with many issues ensuing!
I write this a person who believes that we need to have a clearly recognizable vocabulary, with clarity at all times, but in these ultra changeable times it is ruddy difficult to actually converse without heat being generated.
I don't like the blame game being employed, particularly when it comes to such serious issues as the attacks being carried out on individuals, albeit misogynistic, homophobic, racist, in fact all such attacks without attaching labels.
But with the sexualization of so much in society one must always be accountable for our own standards & actions - I am equally offended by ridiculous dress in public, which must include beachwear style clothing in non beach areas, bikinis/extreme wear to leave nothing to imagination when out in public, but most strongly I must include the persons who think a "Mankini" is appropriate clothing for public exposure!
I'm sure to be called a prude, but society is not a safe place when people fail to understand that every action can have very repercussions, very much along the lines of some people believing they have the right to take anything they want, even if if means the oppression or worse for others, Sara Everard didn't push those boundaries, but someone who who was guided by a warped moral compass decided he could act as he wish without recourse, very sick, but the exploitation of female images for commercial/pornographic purposes has certainly changed the ground rules.
With words being misused/abused what guidance is available to get us to a point in society that all may feel free and safe? Pax MM
Every word in that and every meaning of each word and every grammatical construction was once used for the first time. Do you think that all of those were wrong when that happened?

Or is it only changes that have occurred since you learnt English?

Jonathan

PS: Many words and usages that we take for granted are surprisingly recent. And many words and usages that are detested for their novelty have long provenance. "Eons" rarely come into it.
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Words worth?

Post by Jdsk »

Mick F wrote: 7 Oct 2021, 9:36am Misogyny isn't a crime. Neither is misogamy for that matter.
Did you mean to compare misogyny with misandry, rather than with misogamy?

Thanks

Jonathan
merseymouth
Posts: 2519
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am

Re: Words worth?

Post by merseymouth »

Hi Oldjohnw, Well you ain't sitting on the fence, and rightly so. But as the heat has been applied to those who rely on your definition of ma vis a vis woman, it goes against all that the trans movement is trying to force us all to accept.
As you say vagina or prostate, they're not optional or selectable.
But I was trying to instigate debate, which happily you have all supplied. Finger crossed that I don't discover prostate issues on top of all my other stuff, but the odds ain't on my side? TTFN MM
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Words worth?

Post by reohn2 »

Mick F wrote: 7 Oct 2021, 9:36am I heard on the radio recently, that someone was "guilty of misogyny".
Misogyny isn't a crime. Neither is misogamy for that matter.
I'm guilty of being leftwing :D
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Words worth?

Post by Mick F »

No, you're proud of it. :D
Mick F. Cornwall
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Words worth?

Post by reohn2 »

Stevek76 wrote: 7 Oct 2021, 12:57pm People are having a go at him as it's just another sign that Raab, like most of the cabinet, is rather dim, and elevated into a job well beyond his competence.

This is hardly the first time he has demonstrated this.
That's a sick post :wink:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Words worth?

Post by reohn2 »

Oldjohnw wrote: 7 Oct 2021, 1:11pm I don’t understand why some confusion over definitions of men and women should also confuse over the misogyny and subsequent criminality of a particular policeman. There were no confusions whatsoever in the gender of the policeman murderer or the young woman victim.

For my part, I am quite happy that men have a penis and women a cervix. There is a small number of people who have identified differently and have not had the corresponding surgery to which that definition does not apply.

Raab is a clown and as a lawyer and Lord Chancellor he really should be aware that very precise definitions of words matter.
People who have the reproductive organs of a certain sex ie; man or woman are of that gender until they change,by surgery or other means(can't think of any other means)to the opposite gender,whether they choose to identify as another gender is beside the point they ARE actually the gender by which they were born.
There are,I believe,people who are born with both genitalia inwhich case they have the best or worst of both worlds IYSWIM.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Words worth?

Post by Jdsk »

reohn2 wrote: 7 Oct 2021, 4:39pmPeople who have the reproductive organs of a certain sex ie; man or woman are of that gender until they change,by surgery or other means(can't think of any other means)to the opposite gender,whether they choose to identify as another gender is beside the point they ARE actually the gender by which they were born.
There are,I believe,people who are born with both genitalia inwhich case they have the best or worst of both worlds IYSWIM.
In most babies (and older people) the external genitalia, internal genitalia, hormone production and chromosomes line up into either male or female. Allocation of sex at birth is usually done by looking at only one aspect of one of these: the presence or absence of a penis. But there's a large number of conditions in which all four levels don't line up. The "gender by which they were born" is neither a simple nor a useful concept for those affected.

Jonathan
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Words worth?

Post by reohn2 »

Jdsk wrote: 7 Oct 2021, 5:20pm
reohn2 wrote: 7 Oct 2021, 4:39pmPeople who have the reproductive organs of a certain sex ie; man or woman are of that gender until they change,by surgery or other means(can't think of any other means)to the opposite gender,whether they choose to identify as another gender is beside the point they ARE actually the gender by which they were born.
There are,I believe,people who are born with both genitalia inwhich case they have the best or worst of both worlds IYSWIM.
In most babies (and older people) the external genitalia, internal genitalia, hormone production and chromosomes line up into either male or female. Allocation of sex at birth is usually done by looking at only one aspect of one of these: the presence or absence of a penis. But there's a large number of conditions in which all four levels don't line up. The "gender by which they were born" is neither a simple nor a useful concept for those affected.

Jonathan
I don't disagree with that but the outside world there are only two genders male and female.
To be clear I'm not against people changing their sex or being homosexual.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Words worth?

Post by Ben@Forest »

reohn2 wrote: 8 Oct 2021, 8:10am I don't disagree with that but the outside world there are only two genders male and female.
To be clear I'm not against people changing their sex or being homosexual.
Apparently around 1.3 people per 1,000 are born with intersex characteristics (ambiguous genitalia), but this figure seems to be conflated with intersex traits - people who may have no ambiguous characteristics and just feel different to the gender they were born as - and which is a higher proportion.

The 1.3/1000 figure is interesting. I went to a school with 1,600 children, about 250 in each year and 300 in the 6th form. It means that statistically about 2 were intersex. In an era when there was no privacy in sports showers and changing rooms and so on l can't remember anyone being a 'marked out' for that (and kids are cruel) though of course l never was in female showers and maybe there any unusual characteristics are easier to hide. But at school in those situations you wouldn't want to be 'different'.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Words worth?

Post by reohn2 »

Mick F wrote: 7 Oct 2021, 4:22pm No, you're proud of it. :D
Thanks :)
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Jdsk
Posts: 24627
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Words worth?

Post by Jdsk »

Ben@Forest wrote: 8 Oct 2021, 10:45am
reohn2 wrote: 8 Oct 2021, 8:10am I don't disagree with that but the outside world there are only two genders male and female.
To be clear I'm not against people changing their sex or being homosexual.
Apparently around 1.3 people per 1,000 are born with intersex characteristics (ambiguous genitalia), but this figure seems to be conflated with intersex traits - people who may have no ambiguous characteristics and just feel different to the gender they were born as - and which is a higher proportion.

The 1.3/1000 figure is interesting. I went to a school with 1,600 children, about 250 in each year and 300 in the 6th form. It means that statistically about 2 were intersex. In an era when there was no privacy in sports showers and changing rooms and so on l can't remember anyone being a 'marked out' for that (and kids are cruel) though of course l never was in female showers and maybe there any unusual characteristics are easier to hide. But at school in those situations you wouldn't want to be 'different'.
Yes, it's different for those classified as boys and those classified as girls. The former usually either hide when they're changing or get exemption from games.

But don't you remember the large age spread of pubertal development? Even in the absence of specific conditions that's obvious in shared school changing rooms etc.

Jonathan
Post Reply