The study of why we group things that share something common and name that group with a term is vital to many current disputes currently argued globally, from the streets into the court rooms.
When a Canadian teacher can be jailed for refusing to speak a word, as the term for a group, we need to discuss why we create groups and give them a group name.
Female is a term used to denote a group that shares something in common.
Using group terms is important because it enables us to discuss things without spending hours enumerating all members of the group.
Imagine if you couldn't say female, but could only list all females or describe their individual features. How long would that take? Or imagine having to replace every name with its description in discussion.
That is what we are reduced to now. Instead of using the tools of language to convey a statement or argument, we are reduced to a discussion on the tool itself. This is fine when starting a discussion that has important key terms that are not so familiar to us, in detail, but their definition must be mutually agreed before progressing. Who would have thought we would need to discuss what Male and Female mean, what Man and Woman means?
But here we are, because some are trying to fuck with the meaning of these ancient terms. They are changing the definition of Man and Woman, Gender, Sex, Male and Female, to achieve a personal gain, social acceptance for a minority delusion at the expense of society. And we must agree to change our own use and understanding of these terms, or else.
GENERALISING TO COLLECTIVE NOUNS
As humans, we naturally notice patterns and commonalities; that some things have a quality in common with other things. This is probably a survival instinct. If we see one lion kill a family member, and then later we see another lion, we are well to define a group called"lions" and attribute the quality of killing people to that group.
The more occasions we see lions killing people, the more concrete the quality attributed to the group becomes.
The formulation of an abstract concept to a collective noun is obviously important.
Firstly we notice simmilarities in physical appearance and/or behaviour. This creates the collective noun.
Then we use this abstract concept, the term for a group with simmilar characteristics, as a means of predicting behaviour. Over time, the repetition substantiates the collective term. Who would not be worried if they suddenly saw a lion in front of them?
Some lions won't kill. Perhaps they are full, they have just eaten. Perhaps they are too old to chase. So we accept the term is not exhaustive and it becomes accepted as a generalisation.
But the point has not been lost by one exception.
Hence the practical necessity of group terms and also generalisations.
Now that we understand why we use a single term to denote a group of individuals sharing something in common, we can progress.
SEXUAL GENDER
It is a generalisation that we group individuals as Women and Men. Almost all Women have the same physicality and appearance, which other individuals do not, so the we have a definition by exclusion and simmilarity. Women generally have the ability or potential to birth a child, and do not have penises. Men do not generally give birth.
For thousands of years, the languages of people across the world have assigned terminology to describe the group, and separately from each other. All languages have ancient terms for women and men. Now, we are told this is all wrong.
Today, we are told that we cannot use such group terms that denote a sexual gender, male or female, for humans. The term "gender" means "type". The French word for type is "genre", and the Normans of French Brittany passed it to the English, who accepted the term, after 1066.
Thus "gender" today is an abbreviation of "sexual gender", male or female type.
But sexual gender is not limited to human animals. All animals have a sexual gender in the same way other animals do.
But...
No one is complaining about the equivalent use of sexual gender terms for animals. Wonder why? Seem inconsistent? We use sexual gender terms to describe animals for the same reason we use them for humans. So gender fluid proponents are burdened to apply their views across the animal kingdom.
And that is because we all share the same physical commonalities. Sexual gender refers to sexual organs, hormone types and levels, menstrual cycles, the role in reproducing, the ability to give birth or contribute to egg fertilisation, the X and Y chromosomes.
These are things you nor your dog or cat can choose to have or not. They are things assigned at conception and on display at birth. There is no choice here.
None of this has been questioned about humans, perhaps before Otto Weininger a hundred years ago. It's not questioned because the presence and quality of each is empirically verifiable, objectively evident. It is obvious that a human is a male or female. It is something any idiot can verify.
The word Man does not create a man. The word Man is an abstract concept created by a common understanding that a group of humans display the same certain physiology and that which is not displayed by other humans (i.e. Women). A human may agree that they belong to this group from observation of their physicality and then seeing the consistency between that and how they feel with other members of the Man group.
A person claiming to be a Woman, but has no physciality or experience or feeling that naturally born Woman have, is claiming they are and are not a Woman.
Why does this even need to be spelled out?
Further, the creation of sexual gender terms is organnic and pervasive and ancient. So, for the entire history of the world, every group of people on earth has created terms that denote a group sharing sexual characterisitics, man and woman, boy and girl, him and her, for example.
No DNA test is done prior to the use of the terms male and female to ensure a person is identified as one or the other. The decision to use man or woman is based on the physical appearance of the person; their conformity of appearance to meet the distinction the terms create.
You can pretend to be something. You can put a wig on, makeup, socks in a bra. You can have hormone injections and surgical reconfiguration of your privates.
But you cannot say you are a Woman but not be able to experience conception, pregnancy, childbirth, the menstrual cycle, the physicality of owning a uterus.
Besides the science, there is appearance and physicality. The adams apple, lactation, skin smoothness, muscle growth, external genatalia. These don't require science, only observation.
Those who try to mimic what they are not are not fooling anyone.
The proposition that you choose all this, you choose your sexual gender, is factually, verifiablly incorrect. You cannot choose to have a uterus, hormonal cycles, or birth and pregnancy.
Someone calling themselves a member of the group Transgender Female claim to feel like a Woman, as opposed to them being "assigned" Male from birth. They claim to feel like a Woman. How can a physical Man feel like a Woman, in the same sense that a physical Woman feels like a Woman?
How can you claim to feel like a Woman when you have never had female puberty, menstrual cycles, the effects of estrogen and progesterone, having breasts, and all the other things Woman cite as being what makes them Womanly?
Further, if they feel like a Woman, which is an internal mental experience, and not an outward physical characteristic, why go to the trouble of looking physically like a Woman? Why wear dresses, high heels, makeup, have boob jobs? Because that sounds like they believe being a Woman is simply appearing like a Woman.
Further still, how does a man know what he means when he says Woman? All he has to go on is the physcial comparison between Men and Woman. He only knows what a Woman is by observing physical characteristics. He cannot say I look at Woman and then feel like one. The two activities are not the same. One is internal experience. The other outward appearance.
This is why we can't say I feel like a lion. How do you feel like a lion? How do you know what it's like to feel like a lion? You'd need to know what it feels like to be a lion first, before comparing that feeling with how you feel during consideration and comparing that feeling to other feelings, like feeling like a dog. This is utter nonsense. Thinking something doesn't make it true.
Yet again, We argue against sophistry and illusion, and the need to express the truth. No matter how much the truth hurts, the truth will out. Bullshit is not a good platform from which to achieve truth.
In conclusion:
We call things names, because some things share qualities that distinguish them from other groups of things. If we mess with Names, we are not communicating. We are using language as a tool to achieve a selfish deceit. And that is no way to bring people closer together in understanding, empathy and compassion.
Names are humanity's way of sharing information to achieve understanding.
People need to preserve this fundamental purpose of language and...
STOP FUCKING WITH WORDS!
No comments:
Post a Comment