No hate, but I love a good debate if you’re up for it.
Scenario 1:
Great points, honestly. However, even in this scenario where someone manages to cover all of the bases and managed to create an exact list of what it means to be a woman, it would be impossible to disqualify trans women.
Scenario 2:
I’ll get deeper into this one since it’s more realistic.
I bet you can’t define a car
Vehicles are defined by their frames, and the regulations that revolve around those. I can tell you with absolute certainty whether a vehicle is a car or a truck based off the frame. But this isn’t the point.
Does that mean we all just get to [define words ourselves]
Actually yes. Words gain their definition by how they are most commonly used. You learn a word based off its definition, but the word gains its definition from use. This is how Shakespeare managed to invent so many words in English. He just started using them, and when people asked what they meant he told them and they started using them. This is also why “literally” is defined as “not literally” by Webster dictionary, or at least it was around 2016 (may have changed).
As a matter of fact, entire languages have been built around this concept of redefining words. Most of German is just portmanteaus that were understandable enough to be considered a word.
In this particular case, the words “man” and “woman” is slowly being redefined by society to be more inclusive of trans people. Fighting against the progress of language, in this scenario, is nearly identical to fighting against the progress of trans people.
OK first I have no problem with language evolving. I have no problem with trans people using the word man, woman or whatever else for themselves as they feel comfortable. I have no problem with new words being defined or old words being redefined. That’s not really my issue.
My issue is making the argument that trans people should or shouldn’t be able to use the word on the basis that someone else can or can’t define it in such a way that would exclude them but not others. Can you really say with absolute certainty, with infinite time and space, such a definition could not theoretically exist? That it isn’t in the realm of possibility? And whether it can or can’t exist, should it really define whether they can or can’t use a word?
Also out of curiosity, because as you said it’s not really the point, but regarding the cars, is that really a certainty, including all cars throughout history, all custom home made and kit cars, all foreign cars, specialised race cars, electric cars, they will ALL definitely fit into a single neat set of regulations/definition?
As long as it is legal, it can be defined as a car/truck/bike. Illegal vehicles get more complex, because as you mentioned the frame can be modified.
Such a definition could not theoretically exist
With infinite time, perhaps it could. I’ll give you that one for free, I did exaggerate by saying it was entirely impossible. But for the vast majority of people it is impossible within their lifetime to create such a definition.
Should it really define whether they can or can’t use a word?
Anyone can use any word, just not necessarily correctly. For example, “fish” are not real. There is no defining feature-set for a fish. However, when I say “fish” you think of a little, wet, scaley fella with silly eyes. And that’s fine because communication happens and meaning is understood, but there is no way to define a fish in a way that includes all of the little scaley fellas, jellyfish, sunfish, etc… The same logic is true for the argument about “women”, there is no defining feature-set which includes all AFAB people and zero AMAB people because the lines are too blurry in genetics. An androgen-insensitive XY person with a vagina would still be AFAB, for example.
No hate, but I love a good debate if you’re up for it.
Great points, honestly. However, even in this scenario where someone manages to cover all of the bases and managed to create an exact list of what it means to be a woman, it would be impossible to disqualify trans women.
I’ll get deeper into this one since it’s more realistic.
Vehicles are defined by their frames, and the regulations that revolve around those. I can tell you with absolute certainty whether a vehicle is a car or a truck based off the frame. But this isn’t the point.
Actually yes. Words gain their definition by how they are most commonly used. You learn a word based off its definition, but the word gains its definition from use. This is how Shakespeare managed to invent so many words in English. He just started using them, and when people asked what they meant he told them and they started using them. This is also why “literally” is defined as “not literally” by Webster dictionary, or at least it was around 2016 (may have changed).
As a matter of fact, entire languages have been built around this concept of redefining words. Most of German is just portmanteaus that were understandable enough to be considered a word.
In this particular case, the words “man” and “woman” is slowly being redefined by society to be more inclusive of trans people. Fighting against the progress of language, in this scenario, is nearly identical to fighting against the progress of trans people.
OK first I have no problem with language evolving. I have no problem with trans people using the word man, woman or whatever else for themselves as they feel comfortable. I have no problem with new words being defined or old words being redefined. That’s not really my issue.
My issue is making the argument that trans people should or shouldn’t be able to use the word on the basis that someone else can or can’t define it in such a way that would exclude them but not others. Can you really say with absolute certainty, with infinite time and space, such a definition could not theoretically exist? That it isn’t in the realm of possibility? And whether it can or can’t exist, should it really define whether they can or can’t use a word?
Also out of curiosity, because as you said it’s not really the point, but regarding the cars, is that really a certainty, including all cars throughout history, all custom home made and kit cars, all foreign cars, specialised race cars, electric cars, they will ALL definitely fit into a single neat set of regulations/definition?
As long as it is legal, it can be defined as a car/truck/bike. Illegal vehicles get more complex, because as you mentioned the frame can be modified.
With infinite time, perhaps it could. I’ll give you that one for free, I did exaggerate by saying it was entirely impossible. But for the vast majority of people it is impossible within their lifetime to create such a definition.
Anyone can use any word, just not necessarily correctly. For example, “fish” are not real. There is no defining feature-set for a fish. However, when I say “fish” you think of a little, wet, scaley fella with silly eyes. And that’s fine because communication happens and meaning is understood, but there is no way to define a fish in a way that includes all of the little scaley fellas, jellyfish, sunfish, etc… The same logic is true for the argument about “women”, there is no defining feature-set which includes all AFAB people and zero AMAB people because the lines are too blurry in genetics. An androgen-insensitive XY person with a vagina would still be AFAB, for example.
Also out of curiosity, how do you define an El Camino? I’ve always wondered lol car or truck?