Words worth?
-
- Posts: 2519
- Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am
Re: Words worth?
Hi again, Word definition please - Woman/Women? Not so easy now is it! .
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
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
Re: Words worth?
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.
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
Re: Words worth?
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?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
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.
-
- Posts: 2519
- Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am
Re: Words worth?
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
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
Re: Words worth?
I'm guilty of being leftwing
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Words worth?
That's a sick post
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Words worth?
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.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.
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
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Words worth?
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.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.
Jonathan
Re: Words worth?
I don't disagree with that but the outside world there are only two genders male and female.Jdsk wrote: ↑7 Oct 2021, 5:20pmIn 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.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.
Jonathan
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
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
-
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm
Re: Words worth?
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'.
Re: Words worth?
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.Ben@Forest wrote: ↑8 Oct 2021, 10:45amApparently 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'.
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