I'm talking about characteristics like being aggressive or submissive, competitive or cooperative, etc

I’m just saying that’s not what I was talking about. By “acting like a woman”, I thought you meant he was effeminate in his mannerisms and dress, not adhering to your stereotypes.

But language conventions change over time, in particular English language conventions. And what you are seeing is not the eschewing of language conventions, but the change of them.

And since that change reflects societal changes happening among younger generations, I think the language changes in this instance will stick.

I also think people who grew up with the old conventions will find the new ones jarring and odd. But newer generations will take up the new conventions, and the circle of life will continue.

Perhaps it will stick. Perhaps it won’t.

So for instance a woman can only pretend to be more rational than emotional and they can't actually be more rational than emotional, going by common stereotypes?

Indipendent? It makes you wonder who comes up with these.

Anyone can alter his mannerisms, behavior, and dress to appear feminine, but acting can only go so far.

The funny thing is, if a man behaved like a women, for instance, wouldn't you tend to think of them as being feminine rather than masculine, despite what you see on the outside?

I would tend to think of them as acting feminine rather than being feminine. There is nothing feminine about chest hair or an Adam’s apple, for example, at least as far as I’m concerned.



Eschewing language conventions because one can seems to me a terrible idea, at least if we are to share a language. The same goes for pronouns. Of course, one can use whatever pronouns one likes, so long as he is willing to accept how jarring and odd it might seem to his interlocutors, but to expect others to conform to such usage is absurd.

Words are always evolving. Language belongs to the people, not to lexicographers and grammarians.

It's easy to see the distinction between gender and sex - if you look with a charitable heart.

Take the words, for all I care. One can read the distinction between gender and sex until the cows come home, but one cannot really see it outside of that domain of rhetoric, is my point.

There is some interesting confusion about the distinctions between sex and gender, between states of affairs and states of fantasy. In the mouths of trans activists and their fellow travellers the term “gender” always evokes grammatical gender, the last vestiges of old English. It’s all about pronouns and words like “women”. But in the outer display of it all, in the behavior and dress, the mimicry revolves around sex, to the point where one might seek to alter his biology, his mannerisms, his voice, to better resemble that of a female, even removing sex organs, fashioning new ones, and replacing hormones.

But even the most thorough and precise surgeries cannot erase the reality. The reification of “gender” betrays any distinction between itself and “sex”. Better to return to the language, I suppose, where some ground can be gained. It makes sense to me; along with the decline of grammatical gender in the English language, prudes would start using the term “gender” to refer to sex because of the increasing sexual connotations. Then by the disco era, feminism gets a hold of it to include roles and such. Then gender identity enters the scene. Now males can be women, females can be men, erasing any link to the origin and history of these words.

The discussion is so nuanced that it is almost unintelligible.

It looks like the commies are having a tough go of it.

“As well as the footage from Zhangjiang, other videos have captured “big whites” wrestling people to the ground and kicking them; screaming, yelling and even throwing things at residents who refuse to comply with instructions; and beating a dog to death after its owner was sent to isolation.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-shanghai-residents-pleas-for-help-in-covid-19-lockdown-result-in-their/

It doesn’t matter to me if you feel restricted by my definition, or that you believe my rhetoric can somehow exclude your reflection. These are your personal problems. At any rate, the aspect of my position you seek to draw attention to is pulled from thin air.

The biology, the history, the etymology lead me to one direction. No one has convinced me of another. If excluding my definition, impugning my motives, and torturing the plain meaning of language serves to preserve your penchant for nuanced discussions, have at it, but from this angle I grow closer to concluding that the suppression of an inconvenient truth is the highest duty of your kind of thinking.

“Case in point” is an illustrative example of your assertion “Stipulating a criteria, one way or the other, is a political act”. But you were unwilling or unable to say how that is the case. A poor argument.

It cannot be done for the same reason disembodied brains show no mental states. Mental states are a one-to-one ratio to states of the body as a functioning whole.

Yes. A trans woman is referred to as her/she because it makes sense to say that not because I believe they are female nor would I say they are female. ‘Woman’ is not how we refer to people anymore than man is in general conversation other than to say that ‘woman’/‘man’. In such a situation, for clarification, I would say that trans woman.

It is really not that complicated.

It’s complicated because such pronouns refer to women, not men.

We’ve seen where that has gotten us, though. Men are being allowed to compete in women’s sports, or to disrobe in their change rooms, for example. We’re forcing people to use language we would never use otherwise. We’re cutting off people’s genitalia and feeding hormones to children. We are sacrificing much more than truth.

At what point do you say, “no, that’s not a woman”?

I say that because you said that you know they are not a woman, but are willing to treat them and speak about them as if they were. Have I read it wrong?

I’m not sure it is ethical to lie for my boss, or any other person above me in any hierarchy.

I didn’t say you said anything about sacrificing truth, but you are willing to knowingly utter a falsity to preserve someone’s feelings, with little consideration to the feelings of others who identify as the opposite. I just think that behavior is less than ethical, more of a ploy to avoid confrontation than anything else.

To what extent are you down with sacrificing truth to protect someone’s feelings? I might convey in manner and dress that I am a king, but would you refer to me as “lord” and treat me as such in case you might offend my delusion?

Yes, just as a doe is an adult female of the deer species. Nothing political to see here.

His was a strange criticism and a political act at the same time. It’s no wonder truth suffers around issues such as these.

A poor argument.

A woman is an adult female of the human species. Any man can try to look like one but the biology ultimately betrays the act.

I think the word “absurd” is better applied to your conception of existence and not so much to existing things. This is why we ought to rid ourselves of such mental containers—“existence”, “universe”, and so on—to make room for the less contrived. Any set of things is not itself a thing.

Another Trump-era hoax collapses. Do you remember falling for this one?

Gretchen Whitmer: Michigan governor kidnap plot case collapses

What’s next?

I’ve seen a lot of anti-Russian atrocity propaganda that I feel it important to show the other side of it. I am not in any position to negotiate ceasefires nor contribute to them, and don’t think anyone else here is, so I think we can focus on whatever we want.

“ A video posted online on Monday and verified by The New York Times appears to show a group of Ukrainian soldiers killing captured Russian troops outside a village west of Kyiv.

“He’s still alive. Film these marauders. Look, he’s still alive. He’s gasping,” a man says as a Russian soldier with a jacket pulled over his head, apparently wounded, is seen still breathing. A soldier then shoots the man twice. After the man keeps moving, the soldier shoots him again, and he stops.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/06/world/ukraine-russia-war-news/russia-pows-ukraine-executed

More Biden family corruption. It doesn’t seem to end. Imagine if this was another president and his family. We’d never hear the end of it.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/06/gop-senators-release-more-receipts-showing-the-depths-of-biden-family-profiteering-with-foreign-enemies/

The rouble is back to what it was before the invasion. Remember when Biden bragged and called it the “rubble”? Hilarious.

Maybe it’s the other way about. You’re doing exactly what I caused you to do.

What is silly is the amount of time you’ve spent to say very little. I have to wonder why you tried to refute my initial point.

Yes, I comprehend it. But you don’t cause me to comprehend it, is my point.

I think you’re trying to insert a chain between two disparate events in order to say one caused the other. Sorry, I don’t see it, or you haven’t made it clear, one or the other.

My point is that neurons cause particular neural activity. The body performs the actions, therefor it causes them.

Trump conspiracy theories in a Joe Biden thread. I guess it was doomed to happen.

The only consistency is that neither will likely ever be sentenced because of their corruption.

Every fishing expedition, with the force of the American justice system, has found very little in the case of Trump. Even Stormy Daniels lost her case and owes Trump money.

On the other hand, minor investigative reporting, in combination with the actions of an inept son, has uncovered a great deal about the Biden family, only to be met with censorship by Big Tech, The Media, and the Deep State.

There is zero consistency.

The tendency towards collectivism is too great, towards individualism too rare, that there has never been a society that values the individual. Man seems unable to peer beyond his categories and generalizations long enough to care about the flesh and blood human beings that enter his proximity every day.

“Intentional pattern”…nifty phrase, but “patterns” is a weird way to describe mechanical sounds, and “intentional” would apply to any sound we make on purpose.

The reason we understand another’s words is not because “intentional patterns” float through the air, but because we can associate meaning with another’s sounds, all of which requires a level of understanding acquired through years of active learning, trial and error, practice, and so on.

Myriad investigations into Trump—lawsuits, committees, district attorneys peeking through his life. Nothing like that against Biden.

While many aspects of Hunter Biden’s financial arrangement with CEFC China Energy have been previously reported and were included in a Republican-led Senate report from 2020, a Washington Post review confirmed many of the key details and found additional documents showing Biden family interactions with Chinese executives.
Over the course of 14 months, the Chinese energy conglomerate and its executives paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and his uncle, according to government records, court documents and newly disclosed bank statements, as well as emails contained on a copy of a laptop hard drive that purportedly once belonged to Hunter Biden.

The Post did not find evidence that Joe Biden personally benefited from or knew details about the transactions with CEFC, which took place after he had left the vice presidency and before he announced his intentions to run for the White House in 2020.

But the new documents — which include a signed copy of a $1 million legal retainer, emails related to the wire transfers, and $3.8 million in consulting fees that are confirmed in new bank records and agreements signed by Hunter Biden — illustrate the ways in which his family profited from relationships built over Joe Biden’s decades in public service.

https://archive.ph/TTGgz

More Biden family grift and corruption. Of course we knew about this for years, but we suppressed it for political purposes.

I’ll pass on the YouTube video.

Cells in the inner ear transform vibration into electrical signals. No other thing or force is causing this to happen or performing this activity.

The effects of spoken words on a human being is the same as all acoustic waves, at least the ones our biology is capable of detecting. The waves vibrate the ear drum. So spoken words can effect human beings insofar as they vibrate another’s ear drums, like all sounds, but beyond that the words have no effect. After that all subsequent effects are caused by the biology. So we should not being saying words cause such-and-such reactions in human beings (taking offence for example), when human beings are the causes of such reactions.

I don’t understand. Why is it magical thinking to believe pricking a person with a needle would cause them to feel pain?

For instance?

So in what way is Western propaganda similar to Russian propaganda? What would you even qualify as propaganda?

It has become exceedingly difficult to find what Russians are saying about any of this. Any view that could be construed as Russian or anti-Ukraine is met with censorship of the highest order. Anything that comes out of it is immediately deemed “Russian disinformation”, whether true or false.

Here in Canada, the Federal broadcast regulators have banned Russian media country-wide. All media is focused on the one-sided, pro-Ukraine narratives. It’s not even subtle.