Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
I am with rat.......
the word of the year is not "vax".
In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
I am with rat.......
WHAT??????
/reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
And you're the wrong gender.
the word of the year is not "vax".
Whew.
In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
I am with rat.......
WHAT??????
/reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
And you're the wrong gender.
* Dorothy J Heydt:
In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
I am with rat.......
WHAT??????
/reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
And you're the wrong gender.
Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
Besides, not only women get pregnant.
* Dorothy J Heydt:
In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
I am with rat.......
WHAT??????
/reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
And you're the wrong gender.
Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
Besides, not only women get pregnant.
On 12/31/2021 10:18 AM, Quinn C wrote:
* Dorothy J Heydt:
In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
I am with rat.......
WHAT??????
/reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
And you're the wrong gender.
Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
Besides, not only women get pregnant.
I, Lynn McGuire, am a male. Dorothy knows this as we have been posting
here for several years.
* Dorothy J Heydt:
In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
I am with rat.......
WHAT??????
/reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
And you're the wrong gender.
Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
Besides, not only women get pregnant.
In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
I am with rat.......
WHAT??????
/reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
And you're the wrong gender.
the word of the year is not "vax".
Whew.
On 12/31/21 11:18 AM, Quinn C wrote:
* Dorothy J Heydt:
In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
I am with rat.......
WHAT??????
/reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
And you're the wrong gender.
Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
Besides, not only women get pregnant.
There are those who would dispute that, and quite vociferously.
But aside from that, I have a vague memory of some author (perhaps a >fictional one) claiming to be “with book”.
On 12/30/2021 9:08 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
I am with rat.......
WHAT??????
/reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
And you're the wrong gender.
the word of the year is not "vax".
Whew.
My wife watched "Stargirl" this afternoon on Disney+. Stargirl has a
pet rat that goes WITH her everywhere with free run in and out of her >backpack and across her shoulders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargirl_(film)
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE-e7v4bvxw
On 12/31/2021 10:18 AM, Quinn C wrote:
* Dorothy J Heydt:
In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
I am with rat.......
WHAT??????
/reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
And you're the wrong gender.
Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
Besides, not only women get pregnant.
I, Lynn McGuire, am a male. Dorothy knows this as we have been posting
here for several years.
Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, “every
human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
through the legs of a woman to be on Earth”.
Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, `every
human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
through the legs of a woman to be on Earth'.
You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business position.
In article <10vu5vcu4qif$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, `every
human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
through the legs of a woman to be on Earth'.
You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business
position.
Calling someone with a another position a name intended to be derogatory
is usually a sign that you have no valid arguments.
In any case, the acronym is not even accurate, as stating that only
women (as opposed to men) get pregnant is not "radical" feminism in any meaningful sense, but rather a statement of fact such as that California
is larger than Luxembourg.
* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:
In article <10vu5vcu4qif$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, `every
human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
through the legs of a woman to be on Earth'.
You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business >> position.
Calling someone with a another position a name intended to be derogatory
is usually a sign that you have no valid arguments.
I'm not name-calling here, but quoting a self-characterization of
Chappelle's from exactly the context that Lynn has expressed agreement
to.
In any case, the acronym is not even accurate, as stating that only
women (as opposed to men) get pregnant is not "radical" feminism in any meaningful sense, but rather a statement of fact such as that California
is larger than Luxembourg.
The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
"feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're women. So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
"person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?
I have never understood what "radical" feminism means, but, putting that aside, it's my honest opinion that not accepting that trans women are
women dooms the feminist project.
Separate but equal hasn't worked for
race, and discrimination by gender will only be overcome if we abolish
the habitual segregation by gender. That's a long-term project that I
believe is happening by itself, but I'd be in favor of pushing it to go
a bit faster, as in making it a rule to desegregate in daycare now (we
can't hope to change the habits of most adults, so we need to start with
the young, and then hope they'll organize their world differently once they're in charge.)
In article <1fy3fvj76w9ds$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:
In article <10vu5vcu4qif$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, `every >>>>> human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
through the legs of a woman to be on Earth'.
You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business >>>> position.
Calling someone with a another position a name intended to be derogatory >>> is usually a sign that you have no valid arguments.
I'm not name-calling here, but quoting a self-characterization of
Chappelle's from exactly the context that Lynn has expressed agreement
to.
I'm referring to the use of "team TERF".
In any case, the acronym is not even accurate, as stating that only
women (as opposed to men) get pregnant is not "radical" feminism in any
meaningful sense, but rather a statement of fact such as that California >>> is larger than Luxembourg.
The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this
discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
"feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're
women. So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
"person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?
Because it is stupid. Anyone who thinks that appearance and demeanor is
what determines if one is a man or a woman, in any sense, apparently
wants to go back to the gender stereotypes of the 1950s and earlier,
throwing out all the progress, emancipation, and so on since then.
Sure, you can have any demeanor or appearance you want, but what is
gained by claiming to be something you are not as well?
If I put on a uniform and identify as a general, should I have access to
the pentagon?
I have never understood what "radical" feminism means, but, putting that
aside, it's my honest opinion that not accepting that trans women are
women dooms the feminist project.
Quite the opposite. It opposes almost everything feminism has fought
for.
rapists identifying as women to be moved to women's prisons, etc.).
The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
"feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're women. So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
"person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?
* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:
In article <10vu5vcu4qif$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, `every
human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
through the legs of a woman to be on Earth'.
You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business >>> position.
Calling someone with a another position a name intended to be derogatory
is usually a sign that you have no valid arguments.
I'm not name-calling here, but quoting a self-characterization of
Chappelle's from exactly the context that Lynn has expressed agreement
to.
In any case, the acronym is not even accurate, as stating that only
women (as opposed to men) get pregnant is not "radical" feminism in any
meaningful sense, but rather a statement of fact such as that California
is larger than Luxembourg.
The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this >discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
"feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're >women.
So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
"person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?
I have never understood what "radical" feminism means, but, putting that >aside, it's my honest opinion that not accepting that trans women are
women dooms the feminist project. Separate but equal hasn't worked for
race, and discrimination by gender will only be overcome if we abolish
the habitual segregation by gender. That's a long-term project that I
believe is happening by itself, but I'd be in favor of pushing it to go
a bit faster, as in making it a rule to desegregate in daycare now (we
can't hope to change the habits of most adults, so we need to start with
the young, and then hope they'll organize their world differently once >they're in charge.)
In article <1fy3fvj76w9ds$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this
discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
"feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're
women. So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
"person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?
Even assuming that one accepts your usage guide, as specified above,
i.e. "woman" at least CAN mean "person with the typical anatomy
associated with XX chromosomes", then it is clear from the context that "pregnant women" uses the term "women" in that sense.
One could thus
object only if one thinks that it should be used only in the other
sense. Saying "pregnant people" or "people with uterus" or whatever
helps no-one.
Also, any "transman" getting pregnant is not doing a very good job of identifying as a man.
a) "transmen" are probably not a target for most
rapists and b) if a "transman" is still ovulating and menstruating, then
the "identification" is not very convincing.
Even assuming that one accepts your usage guide, as specified above,
i.e. "woman" at least CAN mean "person with the typical anatomy
associated with XX chromosomes", then it is clear from the context that "pregnant women" uses the term "women" in that sense.
No, it could - and should - mean "person who is pregnant and identifies
as a woman", as opposed to pregnant men or non-binary people. Therefore, "pregnant woman" isn't inclusive of all pregnant people.
Likewise, "mother" should be a parent who is a woman, and not a man who birthed the child, possibly (currently in most cases) before transition.
One could thus
object only if one thinks that it should be used only in the other
sense. Saying "pregnant people" or "people with uterus" or whatever
helps no-one.
Tell that to people who are pregnant and not women and feel excluded,
who may even get told that they should leave the gynecological practice
or maternity ward.
"Pregnant person" doesn't hurt anybody.
Also, any "transman" getting pregnant is not doing a very good job of identifying as a man.
Now you're limiting again what "man" should mean. Weren't you just complaining that we should let go of those stereotypes?
They usually do it temporarily for the purpose of getting pregnant,
similarly to cis women who have difficulty conceiving without medical intervention.
In article <gfk0khgk9bl4$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
Even assuming that one accepts your usage guide, as specified above,
i.e. "woman" at least CAN mean "person with the typical anatomy associated with XX chromosomes", then it is clear from the context that "pregnant women" uses the term "women" in that sense.
No, it could - and should - mean "person who is pregnant and identifies
as a woman", as opposed to pregnant men or non-binary people. Therefore, "pregnant woman" isn't inclusive of all pregnant people.
Anyone who is pregnant is, by definition, a woman. Believing in some
fantasy world doesn't change that.
Likewise, "mother" should be a parent who is a woman, and not a man who birthed the child, possibly (currently in most cases) before transition.
Dream on.
One could thus
object only if one thinks that it should be used only in the other
sense. Saying "pregnant people" or "people with uterus" or whatever helps no-one.
Tell that to people who are pregnant and not women and feel excluded,
who may even get told that they should leave the gynecological practice
or maternity ward.
If they feel excluded because they identify as something they are not,
that is their problem.
"Pregnant person" doesn't hurt anybody.
Except that it is an insult to people who want to use language
meaningfully.
Calling me "Oh most glorious master of the universe" doesn't hurt
anybody, but I don't see any point in trying to force it on others, especially not threatening them with death on Twitter.
Also, any "transman" getting pregnant is not doing a very good job of identifying as a man.
Now you're limiting again what "man" should mean. Weren't you just complaining that we should let go of those stereotypes?
Stereotypes refer to gender, not sex.
They usually do it temporarily for the purpose of getting pregnant, similarly to cis women who have difficulty conceiving without medical intervention.
That, SIR, is an insult, and a HUGE one, to real women with fertility problems.
In article <gfk0khgk9bl4$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
Even assuming that one accepts your usage guide, as specified above,
i.e. "woman" at least CAN mean "person with the typical anatomy
associated with XX chromosomes", then it is clear from the context that
"pregnant women" uses the term "women" in that sense.
No, it could - and should - mean "person who is pregnant and identifies
as a woman", as opposed to pregnant men or non-binary people. Therefore,
"pregnant woman" isn't inclusive of all pregnant people.
Anyone who is pregnant is, by definition, a woman.
Likewise, "mother" should be a parent who is a woman, and not a man who
birthed the child, possibly (currently in most cases) before transition.
Dream on.
One could thus
object only if one thinks that it should be used only in the other
sense. Saying "pregnant people" or "people with uterus" or whatever
helps no-one.
Tell that to people who are pregnant and not women and feel excluded,
who may even get told that they should leave the gynecological practice
or maternity ward.
If they feel excluded because they identify as something they are not,
that is their problem.
"Pregnant person" doesn't hurt anybody.
Except that it is an insult to people who want to use language
meaningfully.
Calling me "Oh most glorious master of the universe" doesn't hurt
anybody, but I don't see any point in trying to force it on others, especially not threatening with death on Twitter.
Also, any "transman" getting pregnant is not doing a very good job of
identifying as a man.
Now you're limiting again what "man" should mean. Weren't you just
complaining that we should let go of those stereotypes?
Stereotypes refer to gender, not sex.
They usually do it temporarily for the purpose of getting pregnant,
similarly to cis women who have difficulty conceiving without medical
intervention.
That, SIR, is an insult, and a HUGE won, to real women with fertility problems.
"Pregnant person" doesn't hurt anybody.
Except that it is an insult to people who want to use language
meaningfully.
In article <8KudnZZqaPONMFL8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/31/21 11:18 AM, Quinn C wrote:There's a line in C. S. Lewis's [male] novel _Till We Have
* Dorothy J Heydt:
In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
I am with rat.......
WHAT??????
/reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
And you're the wrong gender.
Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
Besides, not only women get pregnant.
There are those who would dispute that, and quite vociferously.
But aside from that, I have a vague memory of some author (perhaps a
fictional one) claiming to be “with book”.
Faces_, describing a woman [never married nor bore children] who,
deciding that she has been horribly wronged, is determined to
write all about it, saying "I was with book, as a woman is with
child."
"person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?
* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:
In article <gfk0khgk9bl4$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
Even assuming that one accepts your usage guide, as specified above,
i.e. "woman" at least CAN mean "person with the typical anatomy
associated with XX chromosomes", then it is clear from the context that >>>> "pregnant women" uses the term "women" in that sense.
No, it could - and should - mean "person who is pregnant and identifies
as a woman", as opposed to pregnant men or non-binary people. Therefore, >>> "pregnant woman" isn't inclusive of all pregnant people.
Anyone who is pregnant is, by definition, a woman.
You are not in charge of definitions.
And yours is on the way out. It will go away when the "old cis men" die.
Likewise, "mother" should be a parent who is a woman, and not a man who
birthed the child, possibly (currently in most cases) before transition.
Dream on.
One could thus
object only if one thinks that it should be used only in the other
sense. Saying "pregnant people" or "people with uterus" or whatever
helps no-one.
Tell that to people who are pregnant and not women and feel excluded,
who may even get told that they should leave the gynecological practice
or maternity ward.
If they feel excluded because they identify as something they are not,
that is their problem.
"Pregnant person" doesn't hurt anybody.
Except that it is an insult to people who want to use language
meaningfully.
Calling me "Oh most glorious master of the universe" doesn't hurt
anybody, but I don't see any point in trying to force it on others,
especially not threatening with death on Twitter.
Also, any "transman" getting pregnant is not doing a very good job of
identifying as a man.
Now you're limiting again what "man" should mean. Weren't you just
complaining that we should let go of those stereotypes?
Stereotypes refer to gender, not sex.
Yes, and in "pregnant man", "man" is obviously referring to gender.
Nobody is "doing a good or bad job" of being a biological male or female
any more than they're doing a good or bad job at having blue or brown
eyes.
But sex doesn't mean anything in society, not any more than blue or
brown eyes. Only gender means something in society. Most of the time,
you can't even see what kind of genitals someone has - you just guess
their gender based on their stereotypical appearance, and then you
expect that their sex is probably in accordance with the perceived
gender.
That is the practice, but you are stuck in theory land in this
discussion. Yours is the fantasy land, because you wish everything was
as neat as human life isn't. Society isn't. Humans are cultural by
nature, and nature means nothing to them except through the lens of
culture. So they invented gender to make sex understandable. Many
thousands of years ago.
They usually do it temporarily for the purpose of getting pregnant,
similarly to cis women who have difficulty conceiving without medical
intervention.
That, SIR, is an insult, and a HUGE won, to real women with fertility
problems.
Ok, you're not only team TERF, you're a full-on transphobe, and any
further discussion is useless. Well, I leave the above for the benefit
of others in the group.
Don't wait for an answer to your email. I could try to explain, but I'll
save that for people who seem open to listen.
* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:
In article <gfk0khgk9bl4$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
Even assuming that one accepts your usage guide, as specified above,
i.e. "woman" at least CAN mean "person with the typical anatomy
associated with XX chromosomes", then it is clear from the context that >>> "pregnant women" uses the term "women" in that sense.
No, it could - and should - mean "person who is pregnant and identifies
as a woman", as opposed to pregnant men or non-binary people. Therefore, >> "pregnant woman" isn't inclusive of all pregnant people.
Anyone who is pregnant is, by definition, a woman.
You are not in charge of definitions.
And yours is on the way out. It will go away when the "old cis men" die.
But sex doesn't mean anything in society, not any more than blue or
brown eyes. Only gender means something in society. Most of the time,
you can't even see what kind of genitals someone has - you just guess
their gender based on their stereotypical appearance, and then you
expect that their sex is probably in accordance with the perceived
gender.
They usually do it temporarily for the purpose of getting pregnant,
similarly to cis women who have difficulty conceiving without medical
intervention.
That, SIR, is an insult, and a HUGE won, to real women with fertility problems.
Ok, you're not only team TERF, you're a full-on transphobe, and any
further discussion is useless. Well, I leave the above for the benefit
of others in the group.
On 02/01/2022 05:09, Quinn C wrote:
[SNIP]
"person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?Congratulations, you have just stated that my post-hysterectomy partner
is not a Woman.
Not a good try.
* J. Clarke:
And after a while it will be realized that "men" and "women" have
become meaningless terms, they will be either discarded or used to
refer to fashions, and new ones will arise to distinguish those who
have the equipment to become pregnant from those who have the
equipment to make them so.
For the people who think the most important information about every
person they meet is whether they could get them pregnant, yes. Can't do >anything about those. But I try to keep away from them.
For me, in 99% of my interactions with strangers, fucking doesn't come
to mind. But I may be special.
On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 12:17:29 -0500, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
* J. Clarke:
And after a while it will be realized that "men" and "women" have
become meaningless terms, they will be either discarded or used to
refer to fashions, and new ones will arise to distinguish those who
have the equipment to become pregnant from those who have the
equipment to make them so.
For the people who think the most important information about every
person they meet is whether they could get them pregnant, yes. Can't do >>anything about those. But I try to keep away from them.
For me, in 99% of my interactions with strangers, fucking doesn't come
to mind. But I may be special.
If you identify as male and present with abdominal swelling the fact
that you have a functioning uterus and ovaries can be very helpful to
the physician. He'll probably figure this out after he's got your
clothes off, but until then he's going to be working from erroneous assumptions.
I wouldn't want the impolite people to be in charge, though,
there's my bias.
I wasn't declaring right or wrong, true or false, but reported what
sensible and polite people use in real life in my experience. I'm a
linguist and therefore lean strongly towards description, not
prescription.
In article <>, Quinn C
<> writes:
I wasn't declaring right or wrong, true or false, but reported what sensible and polite people use in real life in my experience. I'm a linguist and therefore lean strongly towards description, notMy experience is that many who conform are doing so not because they are sensible and polite (which they are), but because of fear of getting cancelled or even killed by the woke.
prescription.
In article <1fzw7h8dcq73w.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C ><lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
I wasn't declaring right or wrong, true or false, but reported what
sensible and polite people use in real life in my experience. I'm a
linguist and therefore lean strongly towards description, not
prescription.
My experience is that many who conform are doing so not because they are >sensible and polite (which they are), but because of fear of getting >cancelled or even killed by the woke.
In article <1fzw7h8dcq73w.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
I wasn't declaring right or wrong, true or false, but reported what
sensible and polite people use in real life in my experience. I'm a
linguist and therefore lean strongly towards description, not
prescription.
My experience is that many who conform are doing so not because they are sensible and polite (which they are), but because of fear of getting cancelled or even killed by the woke.
I've often wondered why people seem to be so afraid of those like trans people who are at the very bottom of the foodchain, often jobless,
homeless, reduced to sex work and drugs, because society offers them no
other place. Maybe it's because despite all that oppression and
punishment, they still refuse to bend to the tyranny of normalcy. They
just can't be whipped into obedience. Maybe that's the ultimate horror
to the normies.
In article <9gicz53z04hf$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
I've often wondered why people seem to be so afraid of those like trans
people who are at the very bottom of the foodchain, often jobless,
homeless, reduced to sex work and drugs, because society offers them no
other place. Maybe it's because despite all that oppression and
punishment, they still refuse to bend to the tyranny of normalcy. They
just can't be whipped into obedience. Maybe that's the ultimate horror
to the normies.
In probably less than two minutes, Google should point you to many death threats issued by "transwomen".
Note that the current gender-critical positions arose only after the ridiculous demands of the "transwomen are women" crowd. No sensible
person has a problem with non-militant transwomen, most of whom ar
"really" trans, but now that self-identification is the only criterion,
it is not only open to abuse, but is being abused.
Note that there are also transwomen, even on Twitter, who agree with my position.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 238:22:03 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Files: | 12,172 |
| Messages: | 5,319,939 |
