Printed books in universities are scams. They print new versions of book that is the same as it was, sometimes they just change the order and then teachers mention you need that very version to be able to follow the course but it really is the same book in a different order. So of course if there is a popular movement that advocates replacing the word woman for a meaningless terms they will jump on the occasion to print new books. Then when people realise that this gender affirmation doesn’t (for most of them) make them any happier or actually make them worse, it will be another great opportunity to print another version of their books.
Here’s a documentary about the gender affirmation made ~10 years ago. I think there is 6 parts to it. It is also available on Youtube but I recommend using Invidious
Do you understand how ridiculous it sounds when you say “a gender dysphoria concept that has been around for hundreds of years is fake because colleges need to reprint books”?
This is the very essence of a disingenuous argument. A book does not dictate the absolute meaning of a concept, and likewise the motivation of printing a book does not invalidate the information therein.
Haven’t made that claim sorry. I haven’t been clear enough. There’s an obvious trend to remove the word woman from books to be replace with people with such organs. Doesn’t make gender disphoria false.
So you’re having a problem with clearer, more specific language?
Here’s a fun game: Define “woman” in such a way as to include only the people you believe should count as women that also excludes anyone else. I’ll even give you some hints—
Going with “people who menstruate” means post-menopausal women, women on birth control, and women with certain types of infertilities are now “men”.
Going with “people with XX chromosomes” means men born 46,XX (de la Chapelle syndrome) are now “women”. It’ll be news to them; most of them never know unless they have some other occasion to look at their chromosomes! I guess that big biker-looking beared motherfucker is going to the women’s room. 5-alpha-reductase deficiency causes a lot of problems for this definition, too… they’re XY, but all their external sex characteristics are female, which may or may not change with the onset of puberty. Oh, and XY complete androgen insensitivity is going to cause an issue with this one, too. No secondary male sex characteristics at all, but you’re sending them over to the dangerous men’s bathroom after finding a micropenis on the Mandatory Small-Goverment Pre-Bathroom Crotch Check.
“People who were born with vaginas” means every intersex person ever born is a “woman”, regardless of what call the doctors made at birth. Including, again, those with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, who are now “women”, when, under the above definition, they were “men”.
“People with female brain structures” isn’t one I’ve heard often, but it’s come up, and the problem with that is the sexually dimorphic nucleus (the INAH) is “female” in gay men and “male” in lesbians, and the bed nucleus of the striae terminalis is “male” in trans men and “female” in trans women. So a lot of big, burly, hairy dudes are now going into the women’s bathroom. And it’s not like we just noticed this; we’ve known about the INAH for almost 40 years, and the striae terminalis for close to 20.
“It’s just obvious! Women are women! Stop making it complicated!” Ok, but we’re talking about both science and policy, both of which have to be written very specifically. You can’t pass a bill that says “Only women are allowed to do X” and then define “women” as “you know what we’re talking about”. It’s not the rest of the world’s fault that this shit is too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker.
Bravo! This is one of the most well written, thorough rebuttals I have ever read to this specific appeal to definition. I’m most certainly going to be mentally bookmarking this for reference and further research.
Printed books in universities are scams. They print new versions of book that is the same as it was, sometimes they just change the order and then teachers mention you need that very version to be able to follow the course but it really is the same book in a different order. So of course if there is a popular movement that advocates replacing the word woman for a meaningless terms they will jump on the occasion to print new books. Then when people realise that this gender affirmation doesn’t (for most of them) make them any happier or actually make them worse, it will be another great opportunity to print another version of their books.
Here’s a documentary about the gender affirmation made ~10 years ago. I think there is 6 parts to it. It is also available on Youtube but I recommend using Invidious
Brainwash documentary
Do you understand how ridiculous it sounds when you say “a gender dysphoria concept that has been around for hundreds of years is fake because colleges need to reprint books”?
This is the very essence of a disingenuous argument. A book does not dictate the absolute meaning of a concept, and likewise the motivation of printing a book does not invalidate the information therein.
Haven’t made that claim sorry. I haven’t been clear enough. There’s an obvious trend to remove the word woman from books to be replace with people with such organs. Doesn’t make gender disphoria false.
So you’re having a problem with clearer, more specific language?
Here’s a fun game: Define “woman” in such a way as to include only the people you believe should count as women that also excludes anyone else. I’ll even give you some hints—
Going with “people who menstruate” means post-menopausal women, women on birth control, and women with certain types of infertilities are now “men”.
Going with “people with XX chromosomes” means men born 46,XX (de la Chapelle syndrome) are now “women”. It’ll be news to them; most of them never know unless they have some other occasion to look at their chromosomes! I guess that big biker-looking beared motherfucker is going to the women’s room. 5-alpha-reductase deficiency causes a lot of problems for this definition, too… they’re XY, but all their external sex characteristics are female, which may or may not change with the onset of puberty. Oh, and XY complete androgen insensitivity is going to cause an issue with this one, too. No secondary male sex characteristics at all, but you’re sending them over to the dangerous men’s bathroom after finding a micropenis on the Mandatory Small-Goverment Pre-Bathroom Crotch Check.
“People who were born with vaginas” means every intersex person ever born is a “woman”, regardless of what call the doctors made at birth. Including, again, those with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, who are now “women”, when, under the above definition, they were “men”.
“People with female brain structures” isn’t one I’ve heard often, but it’s come up, and the problem with that is the sexually dimorphic nucleus (the INAH) is “female” in gay men and “male” in lesbians, and the bed nucleus of the striae terminalis is “male” in trans men and “female” in trans women. So a lot of big, burly, hairy dudes are now going into the women’s bathroom. And it’s not like we just noticed this; we’ve known about the INAH for almost 40 years, and the striae terminalis for close to 20.
“It’s just obvious! Women are women! Stop making it complicated!” Ok, but we’re talking about both science and policy, both of which have to be written very specifically. You can’t pass a bill that says “Only women are allowed to do X” and then define “women” as “you know what we’re talking about”. It’s not the rest of the world’s fault that this shit is too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker.
Bravo! This is one of the most well written, thorough rebuttals I have ever read to this specific appeal to definition. I’m most certainly going to be mentally bookmarking this for reference and further research.
Why are you the way that you are?