It is unfortunate that people will say that sex and gender are two different things while using sex specific words for gender.
Like it or not, when people think of sex they are thinking about plumbing. I'm a man so I'm just guessing that when women are in shared places where they will be visibly naked, no matter how open minded they are, …
It is unfortunate that people will say that sex and gender are two different things while using sex specific words for gender.
Like it or not, when people think of sex they are thinking about plumbing. I'm a man so I'm just guessing that when women are in shared places where they will be visibly naked, no matter how open minded they are, a seven inch clitoris will be a hard sell. Especially when hard. That was blunt, but it must be addressed honestly.
There really is little out no reason for gender specific places in a world of equality, but there are for sex specific places. The argument being that sex and gender are separate things with common names needs to be applied across the board.
If I walked into a woman's locker room and exposed myself I could be arrested and end up on a sex offender list. But if I said that I identify as a woman and took off a dress to expose myself there would it be ok?
"It is unfortunate that people will say that sex and gender are two different things while using sex specific words for gender"
Yep, the language games are by design. They're a feature of all activism rooted in postmodernism. The changing definition of racism, the changing definitions of sex and gender, the changing defining of "woman." Eventually, people who aren't paying attention simply give up and accept whatever definition they're given. No matter how incoherent. Oh, black people can't be racists and all white people are? Okay. Oh, a woman is just "somebody who identifies as a woman." That's fine. What could possibly go wrong? Circularity be damned. In fact, many people don't even notice the circulatory anymore.
As Orwell observed years ago, if you limit people's ability to express their ideas, you limit their ability to think.
You want to read about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis from 1929. It has strong and weak versions; the weaker says that not having the vocabulary for concepts makes their discussion difficult, the strong version says it makes their discussion impossible. The weak form is robustly supported by research, the strong form less so but far from wholly discredited.
Orwell was an advocate of the strong form but the inhibitions of Newspeak were tied to the willingness of doublethink. I see the seeds of doublethink in our new aggressive nomenclatural conformity.
"The lie becomes the truth and then becomes a lie again"
BTW the S-W hypothesis predates Orwell; "1984" was written in 1948 and that was his original title.
It is unfortunate that people will say that sex and gender are two different things while using sex specific words for gender.
Like it or not, when people think of sex they are thinking about plumbing. I'm a man so I'm just guessing that when women are in shared places where they will be visibly naked, no matter how open minded they are, a seven inch clitoris will be a hard sell. Especially when hard. That was blunt, but it must be addressed honestly.
There really is little out no reason for gender specific places in a world of equality, but there are for sex specific places. The argument being that sex and gender are separate things with common names needs to be applied across the board.
If I walked into a woman's locker room and exposed myself I could be arrested and end up on a sex offender list. But if I said that I identify as a woman and took off a dress to expose myself there would it be ok?
"It is unfortunate that people will say that sex and gender are two different things while using sex specific words for gender"
Yep, the language games are by design. They're a feature of all activism rooted in postmodernism. The changing definition of racism, the changing definitions of sex and gender, the changing defining of "woman." Eventually, people who aren't paying attention simply give up and accept whatever definition they're given. No matter how incoherent. Oh, black people can't be racists and all white people are? Okay. Oh, a woman is just "somebody who identifies as a woman." That's fine. What could possibly go wrong? Circularity be damned. In fact, many people don't even notice the circulatory anymore.
As Orwell observed years ago, if you limit people's ability to express their ideas, you limit their ability to think.
You want to read about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis from 1929. It has strong and weak versions; the weaker says that not having the vocabulary for concepts makes their discussion difficult, the strong version says it makes their discussion impossible. The weak form is robustly supported by research, the strong form less so but far from wholly discredited.
Orwell was an advocate of the strong form but the inhibitions of Newspeak were tied to the willingness of doublethink. I see the seeds of doublethink in our new aggressive nomenclatural conformity.
"The lie becomes the truth and then becomes a lie again"
BTW the S-W hypothesis predates Orwell; "1984" was written in 1948 and that was his original title.
Oh, but if you put on a dress fifteen seconds before entering the women's "space" and declare yourself a woman, everyone must honor your "identity."
Didn't you know? Dresses have magical properties that turn you into a nice person with zero sexual predation. <sigh>