So Teacher/student hierarchy is good, but academic to layman hierarchy is bad?
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
That's not a relevant question related to your statement. You're now defending the argument that "non-women" can be pregnant, which is nowhere near the claim that "women aren't people". Whether the CDC should cater it's language about health and safety to the social expectations of the word "woman" isn't even relevant. Nobody but you said that women aren't people.
When it comes to political, and economic power yes.
Also, I am against union leaders and more for ballot measures.
You're exactly right: they're merely saying that saying "people" instead of "women" when addressing pregnant people is offensive, and that they should be saying women even when talking about women and girls and trans folks despite it being less clear, implying things about the maturity of pregnant girls, and the post being about vaccine hesitancy
Look, mate, I'm all for criticizing the bureaucrats when they're fucking up, but I'm don't have the time or energy to sort through the hundreds of thousands of pages of dense legal minutiae that a modern society runs on.
I am right, and I do think that post puts Shapiro at a weird position where he is jumping at the current fad of not just saying "women" or "men" at the expense of things he would normally defend. If he thinks everyone who can get pregnant is a woman, then "pregnant people" and "pregnant women" are exact synonyms, making this a very silly tweet for him to pick this fight over, particularly as compared to other situations where people have said things like "people with uteruses" in place of "women" and it actually muddled who they were talking about.
But I also think you were wrong to begin with. That you posted that and accused him of saying women aren't people suggests to me you were ready to criticize Shapiro's tweet before even understanding what you were criticizing. I suspect you saw other people mocking him somewhere and decided it would be fun to join the dogpile without any consideration as to what he was actually saying and on what grounds you disagree.
I knew exactly what I was criticizing: a few weak and easy to misinterpret "argument" that made a noted grifter easy to mock, while simultaneously mocking him over picking a weird semantic fight over the CDC urging pregnant people to get vaccinated. I fully understand his laughable attempt at a gotcha and I'm mocking him for it
Saying "Pregnant People and Trust the Science are incompatible" is the dumbest fucking thing he's said since "sell your flooded house and move". The fact that it's the current semantic argument of Gender Critical Feminists is just...sad
Last edited:
Look at what I was replying to to start with hence having to argue wit sex rather than gender as that was the specifics and no they're not the same thing.
1) According to anyone with a functional brain. Seriously do you not think it's frivolous and petty to sue a gynaecologist over refusing to give some-one an scrotal examination? It would be like suing a swimming coach for refusing to teach you archery just because they're both coaching exercises. I'd assume most people have enough cognitive capacity to realise they're different disciplines."Insanely frivolous" according to who? And do you want the government to have that power, seeing as the mainstream thinks a lot of your ideas are fringe nonsense?
Anyway, you're also wrong on specifics
Trans activist Jessica Yaniv files second lawsuit against 3 beauticians after losing human rights suit to them in 2019
In 2019, tribunal member Devyn Cousineau ordered Yaniv to pay the women $2,000 each for 'improper conduct' which included using the human rights law as a 'weapon' f…nationalpost.com
2) No that's the lawsuit against the beauticians again this time for Libel over the statement they and their legal representatives put out after the last trial. Which is again Yaniv being petty over losing and hoping they'll settle to to cancel out what she owes them for losing the first time.
1) Oh but you see you must because this is about caring for everyone is it not? It's only a simple change to eating gluten free food.
2) You have clearly never tasted gluten free food lol
Oh but you are otherwise it's denying their identity if you use the wrong one and with no standard easy solution like "They look like a woman use She / her" it requires far more memorising specifics.
We're still massively dealing with the fallout from Chernobyl and likely will for a lot longer.
Ireland's population still hasn't recovered from the famine.
EDIT: About 12% of the island's population died under capitalism. Why don't you hold that against capitalism?
I take it from the fact you chose probably the least important part of that post to address that you don't have a reasonable argument to the meat of the argument?
So you would also complain about the use of "police officer" or "chairperson" instead of "policeman / -woman" and "chairman / -woman"? We are already busy degendering lots of language, why not pronouns too? The problem of misgendering and implicit gender bias is inherently ended by removing gender as part of the description / definition.
Names are not common nouns, they are "unique" (allowances, obviously, that some people do have the same name) identifiers.
Secondly, standardisation happens whether we like it or not. There is a way to spell "ladder": it's not really forced - there is no absolute authority dictating it must be that way - but nevertheless there is form recognised as right so that everyone knows how to express two parallel struts connected by perpendicular rungs that you use to travel up and down.
Pronouns are not unique identifiers, and an attempt to force them into becoming one is almost guaranteed to fail. Standardisation is going to happen to neopronouns too: they can exist, and they will be whittled down to a limited number, because if enough people seriously try to make everyone hold to unique pronouns, they're going to end up running smack bang into the mass of people and organisations who don't have time to cater for narcissistic bullshit.
It's not silly at all, because Shapiro is not in the business of being correct or profound. He's in the business of saying whatever he thinks is going to make more people listen to him, think like him, and give him money and influence. Picking this sort of fight is a bit like advertising.
I really wish people would stop signal boosting his bullshit. He's a complete moron who manages to have the complete wrong take almost all the time. He is not trying to convince people of anything, just ruling up his base.
I don't believe the argument has meat. You keep telling me that a bare handful of people having pronouns that aren't on the Approved List is going to cause a significant problem and I just don't see how.
I'm not the person who has a problem with pregnant people.
So, just ignoring the havoc caused by all the spelling variations of common names, huh. Braegndon and Mickaleigh Smith-Johnstoneberry rot in hell, you database destroying monstrosities
But how though? And who"s arguing they should be a unique identifier in the first place? You keep telling me that this is going to be a huge problem and I'm just not seeing it.
What, because of database software or something? How is the odd zir walking around going to cause any problem whatsoever? Are we just assuming that most people and organizations are going to be rude for no reason?
Like, we aren't France: we don't have a committee sitting around approving New English Terms. If people start using a new pronoun, then it's a new word. That's how English has always worked and the system hasn't crumbled down around us yet. Musk's kid has more a chance of crashing a database than any number of new pronouns
Last edited:
Yes, you are correct. There are just an exceptional number of angles to attack this tweet using his own worldview. That doesn't really matter from his motive, but it feels like a silly situation to me.
I'm fine with a few "zirs", as I have said numerous times. I'm not in favour of a profusion of "zirs", "mirs", "xirs", "hirs", "wirs", "birs", "lirs" or whatever any individuals feel like making for themselves. One pronoun set for male, one pronoun set for female, one pronoun set for neither, (maybe one pronoun set to opt out), which adequately encompasses the entire human race. Or, like I said, end gendered pronouns entirely, which is also the fourth of those options.
If a person wants an individualised pronoun, just their own personal one that's all theirs and only theirs because they feel they are unique and special, we can't and shouldn't stop them. However, we can refuse an expectation that others must use it or we're insulting their identity. They can demand and expect a relevant "standard" one (e.g. he, she, or xe), and anything else is voluntary goodwill.
Last edited:
Well that was very much more under empire or imperialism than modern capitalism as such.
Yet Agema is right. It only takes me with being unable to eat gluten to throw a wrench in the works of some places lol. This is even considering that there is a generally acknowledged list of allergens to look out for
But are all people who are pregnant pregnant people or is it far easier to say Pregnant women as 99.9% of the time you're going to be right?
yet people will still know what people mean and generally the way the name is said doesn't greatly change so your can shortcut it.
Presumably people who use unique pronouns
Tick boxes are far easier to work with for systems than custom entry fields especially in terms of easy data collation. Like diversity and inclusion testing where you'd need an AI to read the custom entries to determine each neo-pronoun gender identity isn't being discriminated against.
Generally it ending up in the OED is part of the determination of if it's a real word or recognised as such which yes is due to it's usage too. The issue will be the usage of the term without widespread adoption of the term.