If a man received a kidney transplant from a female donor, would that turn him into a woman? A person’s identity is not determined by a single organ.
So there are men who have vaginas and are still men and women who have penises and are still women.
Feel free to prove me wrong at any time by making a coherent reasoned argument. I’ve been waiting a while.
Busted you at every turn in this thread.
If by “busted” you mean “obscured your own inability to sustain an argument with a bunch of cryptic rhetorical fog”, sure.
Deleted…board would not let me do it.
IMO a discussion isn’t supposed to be about “winning”, it’s supposed to be about thinking and arguing in a coherent way. How can we even get that far if you keep on illogically contradicting your claimed positions and jumping around from one non sequitur to another?
Ok.
Where did I do that?
To take just one example, you say you “don’t like language police”, but you make up your own arbitrary rules about what numbers are or aren’t “sufficient” to “change the language”. You’re the one doing the “language policing”.
Arbitrary?
Well…where do you draw a line when it comes to public policy? I think 0.017% is a pretty low bar but maybe you can make a case for it.
ISTM you are the one looking to shut down debate.
Why does a “line” have to be drawn in this case at all? You seem to be the only one arguing that we need to set any kind of a quantitative “bar” to determine whether we’re supposed to say “pregnant people” vs. “pregnant women”.
Nearly everybody else here, AFAICT, is saying that they think either phrase is acceptable to use, though some have a preference. Heck, in previous posts you yourself said you thought either phrase was acceptable to use.
So why are you trying to language-police it now by imposing a numerical “line” that somebody has to “make a case for”?
I’m still waiting for this random jumble of quibbling to rise to the level of debate.
Says the person who has debated with that “random jumble of quibbling” for the last few hours (see: thread above).
It’s weird you are getting mean.
Know what?
I said that too. At least twice.
Never let it be said that I gave up while there was still the vestige of a chance!
What’s weird about it? I get mean all the time. (Not to the level of forum-violating personal insults, natch, but I can be pretty acid about what I consider incoherent arguments.)
So, speaking of debate, I asked why you felt there had to be some “line” drawn at some specific number?
I know. As I said in the very next sentence after the sentence you just quoted?
This is weird.
Is there a number? One you would actually accept?:
If so, what is that number?
What’s weird about it?
“Accept” for what purpose? Remember, I’m the one saying there doesn’t have to be “a number” determining this language use at all.
You’re the one who seems to be hung up on whether the number in question is “sufficient to change our language”. Why do we have to prescribe language use on this issue according to numbers at all?
What point are you trying to make exactly?
First let’s assume that we want to describe every person who is pregnant.
There are two cases that may apply. Either only women can get pregnant (case 1), or women and other people can get pregnant (case 2). Let’s see how the two phrases work given the above.
If case 1 is true then “pregnant people” is exactly the same set of people as “pregnant women”. Both phrases are equally good, neither of them excludes or includes anyone it shouldn’t.
If case 2 is true then “pregnant people” is not exactly the same as “pregnant women”. The latter term excludes those who are pregnant but not women.
Given that for case 1 both phrases are equally as good and for case 2 “pregnant people” is better in that it includes everyone who should be included, it seems to me that “pregnant people” is objectively better at describing the set of humans who are pregnant.
The fact that you actually accept that people who don’t identify as “women” can get pregnant, I have no idea what your point is.
His point is that he doesn’t like the language police.
But he has chosen a poor topic to debate about it, and has debated poorly about it.
Intersting…
Your post suggests you agree with me but think I debated poorly.
That’s fine.
But if you thought it could be done better why haven’t you stepped-in and provided the better argument?
That’s the superior argument?
Ok…I’ll leave it to everyone here to decide that.