NauticalGent
Ignore List Poster Boy
- Local time
- Today, 01:31
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 6,595
There are two genders XX,XY. Everything else is based on feelings and emotions. Until science comes up with XX.2 or XY.001 were stuck with just two.
No. There are two biological sexes - XX and XY (not counting the occasional rare XXY cases or other chromosomal variants). If you want to use gender, you must take into account that the wiring and plumbing might not match and thus you cannot trust the XX/XY configuration.
I actually agree in part with DickyP's statement: "The whole basis of this problem this misuse of the English language." Though I don't think it is the WHOLE problem, but it IS a contributor.
Well it is actually to the second decimal point - as reported at birth (ie indeterminate sex) .. but that is not the point. The topic was Gender, not Sex .. although that may have been an error/not the intent in the OP. Gender identity is not the same as sex. You seem to have problems with that - and see things as black and white. Some societies actually recognise non-binary genders, suggesting the frequency is sufficiently high to cause it to be recognised.If you have to go to the 3rd decimal of a fraction to make your point, you may need to rethink your logic. Yes there are cases that fall outside of the norm, but for all intent and purposes there are only two.
No, I don't have a problem with sex vs gender. I take issue with redefining language to fit a narrow interpretation.Gender identity is not the same as sex. You seem to have problems with that - and see things as black and white.
I agree, I think it was a mistake to hijack the word gender. It would have avoided many of these problems if they invented a new word. Then, both the Left and the Right could discuss the issue without being caught in language that conflates biological reality with ideological viewpoints.No, I don't have a problem with sex vs gender. I take issue with redefining language to fit a narrow interpretation.
For example: "Men can get pregnant" It MIGHT be possible under some freakish Dr. Frankenstein scenario, but highly unlikely without a uterus transplant. But it gets argued endlessly because people want to believe that trans equates to women, it doesn't.
Language and science have been co-opted by politics.
Indeed it does, by liberals. They want to change the meanings so they can ram their ideology down your throat. It starts with the far left who disproportionately push the agenda. The only way they can argue their ideology is by changing the meanings of long established words. Then what was always X is now Y. What was always true is no longer true, but false. Day is now night, and night is now day. That is the way I see it.Words are hijacked all the time... language changes -new meanings are assigned and language evolves.
The only way they can argue their ideology is by changing the meanings of long established words.
Global warming vs climate change is another example of hijacking. When the predictions failed to come true the left panicked and came up with a new tactic called "change". That way they could be right on the issue regardless of temperature.... Words are hijacked all the time... language changes -new meanings are assigned and language evolves.
A fully grown baby at 9 months old, 1 second from birth is also called a fetus. If you kill that fetus, you can argue all you want that it isn't killing a baby. But I would call that murder. To my mind, the abortion case is altogether different from the man/woman argument because for me, sex is binary because it is about chromosomes. Contrastingly, a fetus/baby distinction is physically on a continuum, even if semantically it is not.Both sides do that. For instance, calling a fetus a baby so that an abortion can be characterized as killing a baby.