Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30

I am with rat, the word of the year is not "vax".

Lynn

In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
>
>I am with rat.......

WHAT??????

/reads comic, dashes sweat from brow

I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.

And you're the wrong gender.

>the word of the year is not "vax".

Whew.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

On 12/30/2021 9:08 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
>>
>> I am with rat.......
>
> WHAT??????
>
> /reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
>
> I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
>
> And you're the wrong gender.
>
>> the word of the year is not "vax".
>
> Whew.

ROTFLMAO !

Lynn

* Dorothy J Heydt:

> In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
>>
>>I am with rat.......
>
> WHAT??????
>
> /reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
>
> I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.

Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
> And you're the wrong gender.

Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.

Besides, not only women get pregnant.

--
Dottie: Maybe you can give him a pep talk.
Tunde: He is a white man with money. God already gave him a pep talk.
-- Bob hearts Abishola, S01E10

On 12/31/2021 10:18 AM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Dorothy J Heydt:
>
>> In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
>>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
>>>
>>> I am with rat.......
>>
>> WHAT??????
>>
>> /reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
>>
>> I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
>
> Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
>
>> And you're the wrong gender.
>
> Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
>
> Besides, not only women get pregnant.

I, Lynn McGuire, am a male. Dorothy knows this as we have been posting
here for several years.

Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, “every
human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
through the legs of a woman to be on Earth”.
https://deadline.com/2021/10/dave-chappelle-the-closer-defended-by-sisters-his-trans-friend-daphne-dorman-1234853511/

Lynn

In article <s4cjwhra1bxt$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>,
Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>* Dorothy J Heydt:
>
>> In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
>>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
>>>
>>>I am with rat.......
>>
>> WHAT??????
>>
>> /reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
>>
>> I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
>
>Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
>
>> And you're the wrong gender.
>
>Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.

But this Lynn appears (from frequent context) to be male.
>
>Besides, not only women get pregnant.
>
Correct; trans men can get pregnant; there was a stupid movie
about it. But I don't *think* Lynn is trans.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <sqnqiq$siv$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/31/2021 10:18 AM, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Dorothy J Heydt:
>>
>>> In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
>>>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
>>>>
>>>> I am with rat.......
>>>
>>> WHAT??????
>>>
>>> /reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
>>>
>>> I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
>>
>> Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
>>
>>> And you're the wrong gender.
>>
>> Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
>>
>> Besides, not only women get pregnant.
>
>I, Lynn McGuire, am a male. Dorothy knows this as we have been posting
>here for several years.

See??????
>

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

On 12/31/21 11:18 AM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Dorothy J Heydt:
>
>> In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
>>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
>>>
>>> I am with rat.......
>>
>> WHAT??????
>>
>> /reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
>>
>> I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
>
> Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
>
>> And you're the wrong gender.
>
> Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
>
> Besides, not only women get pregnant.

There are those who would dispute that, and quite vociferously.

But aside from that, I have a vague memory of some author (perhaps a
fictional one) claiming to be “with book”.

--
John W. Kennedy
Algernon Burbage, Lord Roderick, Father Martin, Bishop Baldwin,
King Pellinore, Captain Bailey, Merlin -- A Kingdom for a Stage!

On 12/30/2021 9:08 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
>>
>> I am with rat.......
>
> WHAT??????
>
> /reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
>
> I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
>
> And you're the wrong gender.
>
>> the word of the year is not "vax".
>
> Whew.

My wife watched "Stargirl" this afternoon on Disney+. Stargirl has a
pet rat that goes WITH her everywhere with free run in and out of her
backpack and across her shoulders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargirl_(film)
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE-e7v4bvxw

Lynn

In article <8KudnZZqaPONMFL8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/31/21 11:18 AM, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Dorothy J Heydt:
>>
>>> In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
>>>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
>>>>
>>>> I am with rat.......
>>>
>>> WHAT??????
>>>
>>> /reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
>>>
>>> I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
>>
>> Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
>>
>>> And you're the wrong gender.
>>
>> Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
>>
>> Besides, not only women get pregnant.
>
>There are those who would dispute that, and quite vociferously.
>
>But aside from that, I have a vague memory of some author (perhaps a
>fictional one) claiming to be “with book”.
>
There's a line in C. S. Lewis's [male] novel _Till We Have
Faces_, describing a woman [never married nor bore children] who,
deciding that she has been horribly wronged, is determined to
write all about it, saying "I was with book, as a woman is with
child."

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <sqod4b$vvp$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/30/2021 9:08 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
>>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
>>>
>>> I am with rat.......
>>
>> WHAT??????
>>
>> /reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
>>
>> I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
>>
>> And you're the wrong gender.
>>
>>> the word of the year is not "vax".
>>
>> Whew.
>
>My wife watched "Stargirl" this afternoon on Disney+. Stargirl has a
>pet rat that goes WITH her everywhere with free run in and out of her
>backpack and across her shoulders.

Those places are fine places to keep one's rat. But not in one's
womb.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargirl_(film)
>and
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE-e7v4bvxw

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

* Lynn McGuire:

> On 12/31/2021 10:18 AM, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Dorothy J Heydt:
>>
>>> In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
>>>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
>>>>
>>>> I am with rat.......
>>>
>>> WHAT??????
>>>
>>> /reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
>>>
>>> I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
>>
>> Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
>>
>>> And you're the wrong gender.
>>
>> Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
>>
>> Besides, not only women get pregnant.
>
> I, Lynn McGuire, am a male. Dorothy knows this as we have been posting
> here for several years.

All right, noted. I'm not here to discriminate against the 14% male
Lynns.
> Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, “every
> human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
> through the legs of a woman to be on Earth”.

You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business
position.

--
Aufmerksamkeit,
ich bitte Sie um Nachsicht für ein dringendes Geschäft.
-- SPAMPOESIE

In article <10vu5vcu4qif$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:

> > Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, `every
> > human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
> > through the legs of a woman to be on Earth'.
>
> You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business
> position.

Calling someone with a another position a name intended to be derogatory
is usually a sign that you have no valid arguments.

In any case, the acronym is not even accurate, as stating that only
women (as opposed to men) get pregnant is not "radical" feminism in any
meaningful sense, but rather a statement of fact such as that California
is larger than Luxembourg.

* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:

> In article <10vu5vcu4qif$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
>
>>> Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, `every
>>> human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
>>> through the legs of a woman to be on Earth'.
>>
>> You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business
>> position.
>
> Calling someone with a another position a name intended to be derogatory
> is usually a sign that you have no valid arguments.

I'm not name-calling here, but quoting a self-characterization of
Chappelle's from exactly the context that Lynn has expressed agreement
to.
> In any case, the acronym is not even accurate, as stating that only
> women (as opposed to men) get pregnant is not "radical" feminism in any
> meaningful sense, but rather a statement of fact such as that California
> is larger than Luxembourg.

The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this
discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
"feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're
women. So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
"person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?

I have never understood what "radical" feminism means, but, putting that
aside, it's my honest opinion that not accepting that trans women are
women dooms the feminist project. Separate but equal hasn't worked for
race, and discrimination by gender will only be overcome if we abolish
the habitual segregation by gender. That's a long-term project that I
believe is happening by itself, but I'd be in favor of pushing it to go
a bit faster, as in making it a rule to desegregate in daycare now (we
can't hope to change the habits of most adults, so we need to start with
the young, and then hope they'll organize their world differently once
they're in charge.)

--
Wenn Sie mit irgendjemand anderem außer viel von ihnen, sind Sie
ganz in Gefahr.
-- SPAMPOESIE

In article <1fy3fvj76w9ds$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:

> * helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:
>
> > In article <10vu5vcu4qif$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
> > <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
> >
> >>> Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, `every
> >>> human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
> >>> through the legs of a woman to be on Earth'.
> >>
> >> You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business
> >> position.
> >
> > Calling someone with a another position a name intended to be derogatory
> > is usually a sign that you have no valid arguments.
>
> I'm not name-calling here, but quoting a self-characterization of
> Chappelle's from exactly the context that Lynn has expressed agreement
> to.

I'm referring to the use of "team TERF".

> > In any case, the acronym is not even accurate, as stating that only
> > women (as opposed to men) get pregnant is not "radical" feminism in any
> > meaningful sense, but rather a statement of fact such as that California
> > is larger than Luxembourg.
>
> The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this
> discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
> associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
> world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
> term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
> "feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're
> women. So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
> "person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?

Because it is stupid. Anyone who thinks that appearance and demeanor is
what determines if one is a man or a woman, in any sense, apparently
wants to go back to the gender stereotypes of the 1950s and earlier,
throwing out all the progress, emancipation, and so on since then.
Sure, you can have any demeanor or appearance you want, but what is
gained by claiming to be something you are not as well?

If I put on a uniform and identify as a general, should I have access to
the pentagon?

> I have never understood what "radical" feminism means, but, putting that
> aside, it's my honest opinion that not accepting that trans women are
> women dooms the feminist project.

Quite the opposite. It opposes almost everything feminism has fought
for. Most feminists are thus against it. There are even sensible
transwomen who are against it.

> Separate but equal hasn't worked for
> race, and discrimination by gender will only be overcome if we abolish
> the habitual segregation by gender. That's a long-term project that I
> believe is happening by itself, but I'd be in favor of pushing it to go
> a bit faster, as in making it a rule to desegregate in daycare now (we
> can't hope to change the habits of most adults, so we need to start with
> the young, and then hope they'll organize their world differently once
> they're in charge.)

I agree that desegregation is a good goal. In Scandinavia, unisex
public toilets are not uncommon (and no-one thinks that which toilet
they use determines their sexuality, that in itself a bizarre concept).
Public saunas in the German- and Dutch speaking countries are mixed
(with nudity required)---open to all, and there are no problems. But
all societies are not that advanced. Given that some distinctions
exist, there are two possibilities: get rid of them, or retain them. If
they are deemed to make sense based on sex, such as separating men's and
women's sports, then that distinction should remain, and not be
superseded by one based on self-identification, which is not only open
to abuse but is being abused ("transwomen" competing in women's sports,
rapists identifying as women to be moved to women's prisons, etc.). In
other words: no distinction at all, open to everyone, or a sex-based
distinction, but not retaining the distinction but basing it on
self-identification. In some cases, such as sports, if the distinction
is not retained, then one can essentially forget women's sports. In
other cases, distinctions should be abolished when society is ready.

* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:

> In article <1fy3fvj76w9ds$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
>
>> * helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:
>>
>>> In article <10vu5vcu4qif$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
>>>
>>>>> Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, `every
>>>>> human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
>>>>> through the legs of a woman to be on Earth'.
>>>>
>>>> You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business
>>>> position.
>>>
>>> Calling someone with a another position a name intended to be derogatory
>>> is usually a sign that you have no valid arguments.
>>
>> I'm not name-calling here, but quoting a self-characterization of
>> Chappelle's from exactly the context that Lynn has expressed agreement
>> to.
>
> I'm referring to the use of "team TERF".

Yes. In case you missed it, Chappelle said "I'm team TERF".

To which others commented, how would he feel if I said "I'm team KKK".

>>> In any case, the acronym is not even accurate, as stating that only
>>> women (as opposed to men) get pregnant is not "radical" feminism in any
>>> meaningful sense, but rather a statement of fact such as that California
>>> is larger than Luxembourg.
>>
>> The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this
>> discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
>> associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
>> world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
>> term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
>> "feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're
>> women. So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
>> "person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?
>
> Because it is stupid. Anyone who thinks that appearance and demeanor is
> what determines if one is a man or a woman, in any sense, apparently
> wants to go back to the gender stereotypes of the 1950s and earlier,
> throwing out all the progress, emancipation, and so on since then.

I see where you're coming from, and I don't like it myself, but it's the
only way I get people not to address me as "Sir". When I'm alone at
home, I don't care what I wear, I know I don't fit in those silly boxes
of "man" and "woman", but they are so deeply ingrained in society that
we have to make concessions. Which is to say no, not that much progress
has been made to *ignore* the difference, as in not categorize every
person at first glance, as in not use "Sir" or "Ma'am", "Ms" and "Mr",
"he" and "she" at all, or I would've been able to continue living as a
"man who doesn't fit any of the stereotypes", but it became unbearable.
Being addressed as "Ma'am" is not ideal to me, but it's a bit better.

> Sure, you can have any demeanor or appearance you want, but what is
> gained by claiming to be something you are not as well?

I am certainly not what "a man" is in society. Gender is real indeed,
gender as opposed to sex, gender as a social category. As long as there
is gender segregation, which I wish there wasn't, I simply fit in much
better with the women (even though I don't claim that title, but the
most important thing is that I'm not a man, anatomy be damned.) And I've
been quite well received in many women circles, and I feel at ease,
where in men's circles, I was so often on edge.

> If I put on a uniform and identify as a general, should I have access to
> the pentagon?

That is very different. Who can show a certificate of having done all
the courses, exams and internships to qualify as woman or man?

Or parent, for that matter, where it might be a good idea.
>> I have never understood what "radical" feminism means, but, putting that
>> aside, it's my honest opinion that not accepting that trans women are
>> women dooms the feminist project.
>
> Quite the opposite. It opposes almost everything feminism has fought
> for.

Not at all. Discrimination isn't done by penises, it's done by "the
dicks attached to them" (as a gay guy once complained in a different
context). It's a subset of men who behave in bad and gross ways that
society has suggested to them ("boys will be boys") or at least allowed
them to do as men. And there are even some trans men among them. And I
can't stand being associated with them in any way.

> rapists identifying as women to be moved to women's prisons, etc.).

But that can't be an argument to put all the real trans women in men's
prisons, where they're predetermined to be victims of rape and violence.

In most cases it's not that difficult to see if such a
self-identification is credible. Part of the problem is that so many
people didn't have access to transition care in the past. Put Nicole
Maines in a men's prison? Madness!

<https://am23.mediaite.com/tms/cnt/uploads/2018/08/nicole-maines-supergirl-dreamer-1200x800.jpg>

Hers is an interesting case because she has an identical twin brother.

--
Mein Name ist Dr. Wendy Watt ein Legitime Seriöse Geld Lender.
-- SPAMPOESIE

In article <1fy3fvj76w9ds$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:

> The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this
> discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
> associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
> world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
> term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
> "feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're
> women. So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
> "person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?

Even assuming that one accepts your usage guide, as specified above,
i.e. "woman" at least CAN mean "person with the typical anatomy
associated with XX chromosomes", then it is clear from the context that
"pregnant women" uses the term "women" in that sense. One could thus
object only if one thinks that it should be used only in the other
sense. Saying "pregnant people" or "people with uterus" or whatever
helps no-one. It is merely virtue signalling, a not-so-secret code to
separate the world into us and them (pretty clearly displayed by those
who specify their pronouns---and chide others for not doing so---and
those who don't).

Also, any "transman" getting pregnant is not doing a very good job of
identifying as a man. A possible exception is a "transman" pregnant as
a result of rape, but a) "transmen" are probably not a target for most
rapists and b) if a "transman" is still ovulating and menstruating, then
the "identification" is not very convincing.

On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 13:09:00 -0500, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:
>
>> In article <10vu5vcu4qif$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
>>
>>>> Only women get pregnant. As so well stated by Dave Chappelle, `every
>>>> human being in this room, every human being on Earth, had to pass
>>>> through the legs of a woman to be on Earth'.
>>>
>>> You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business
>>> position.
>>
>> Calling someone with a another position a name intended to be derogatory
>> is usually a sign that you have no valid arguments.
>
>I'm not name-calling here, but quoting a self-characterization of
>Chappelle's from exactly the context that Lynn has expressed agreement
>to.
>
>> In any case, the acronym is not even accurate, as stating that only
>> women (as opposed to men) get pregnant is not "radical" feminism in any
>> meaningful sense, but rather a statement of fact such as that California
>> is larger than Luxembourg.
>
>The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this
>discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
>associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
>world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
>term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
>"feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're
>women.

I remember attending a party once where someone dressed her husband in
drag and he was prettier than she was. But he did not consider
himself to be a woman, he considered himself to be a man in a dress.

>So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
>"person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?
>
>I have never understood what "radical" feminism means, but, putting that
>aside, it's my honest opinion that not accepting that trans women are
>women dooms the feminist project. Separate but equal hasn't worked for
>race, and discrimination by gender will only be overcome if we abolish
>the habitual segregation by gender. That's a long-term project that I
>believe is happening by itself, but I'd be in favor of pushing it to go
>a bit faster, as in making it a rule to desegregate in daycare now (we
>can't hope to change the habits of most adults, so we need to start with
>the young, and then hope they'll organize their world differently once
>they're in charge.)

* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:

> In article <1fy3fvj76w9ds$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
>
>> The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this
>> discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
>> associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
>> world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
>> term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
>> "feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're
>> women. So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
>> "person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?
>
> Even assuming that one accepts your usage guide, as specified above,
> i.e. "woman" at least CAN mean "person with the typical anatomy
> associated with XX chromosomes", then it is clear from the context that
> "pregnant women" uses the term "women" in that sense.

No, it could - and should - mean "person who is pregnant and identifies
as a woman", as opposed to pregnant men or non-binary people. Therefore,
"pregnant woman" isn't inclusive of all pregnant people.

Likewise, "mother" should be a parent who is a woman, and not a man who
birthed the child, possibly (currently in most cases) before transition.

> One could thus
> object only if one thinks that it should be used only in the other
> sense. Saying "pregnant people" or "people with uterus" or whatever
> helps no-one.

Tell that to people who are pregnant and not women and feel excluded,
who may even get told that they should leave the gynecological practice
or maternity ward.

"Pregnant person" doesn't hurt anybody.

> Also, any "transman" getting pregnant is not doing a very good job of
> identifying as a man.

Now you're limiting again what "man" should mean. Weren't you just
complaining that we should let go of those stereotypes?

> a) "transmen" are probably not a target for most
> rapists and b) if a "transman" is still ovulating and menstruating, then
> the "identification" is not very convincing.

They usually do it temporarily for the purpose of getting pregnant,
similarly to cis women who have difficulty conceiving without medical
intervention.

--
Um zu unserem neuen Sicherheits-System zu verbinden und
zum Schutz vor Betrug.
_klicken Sie hier_
-- SPAMPOESIE

In article <gfk0khgk9bl4$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:

> > Even assuming that one accepts your usage guide, as specified above,
> > i.e. "woman" at least CAN mean "person with the typical anatomy
> > associated with XX chromosomes", then it is clear from the context that
> > "pregnant women" uses the term "women" in that sense.
>
> No, it could - and should - mean "person who is pregnant and identifies
> as a woman", as opposed to pregnant men or non-binary people. Therefore,
> "pregnant woman" isn't inclusive of all pregnant people.

Anyone who is pregnant is, by definition, a woman. Believing in some
fantasy world doesn't change that.

> Likewise, "mother" should be a parent who is a woman, and not a man who
> birthed the child, possibly (currently in most cases) before transition.

Dream on.

> > One could thus
> > object only if one thinks that it should be used only in the other
> > sense. Saying "pregnant people" or "people with uterus" or whatever
> > helps no-one.
>
> Tell that to people who are pregnant and not women and feel excluded,
> who may even get told that they should leave the gynecological practice
> or maternity ward.

If they feel excluded because they identify as something they are not,
that is their problem.

> "Pregnant person" doesn't hurt anybody.

Except that it is an insult to people who want to use language
meaningfully.

Calling me "Oh most glorious master of the universe" doesn't hurt
anybody, but I don't see any point in trying to force it on others,
especially not threatening with death on Twitter.

> > Also, any "transman" getting pregnant is not doing a very good job of
> > identifying as a man.
>
> Now you're limiting again what "man" should mean. Weren't you just
> complaining that we should let go of those stereotypes?

Stereotypes refer to gender, not sex.

> They usually do it temporarily for the purpose of getting pregnant,
> similarly to cis women who have difficulty conceiving without medical
> intervention.

That, SIR, is an insult, and a HUGE won, to real women with fertility
problems.

In article <sqqipu$1mov$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de (Phillip Helbig (undress to reply))
writes:

[correcting typos]

> In article <gfk0khgk9bl4$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
>
> > > Even assuming that one accepts your usage guide, as specified above,
> > > i.e. "woman" at least CAN mean "person with the typical anatomy
> > > associated with XX chromosomes", then it is clear from the context that
> > > "pregnant women" uses the term "women" in that sense.
> >
> > No, it could - and should - mean "person who is pregnant and identifies
> > as a woman", as opposed to pregnant men or non-binary people. Therefore,
> > "pregnant woman" isn't inclusive of all pregnant people.
>
> Anyone who is pregnant is, by definition, a woman. Believing in some
> fantasy world doesn't change that.
>
> > Likewise, "mother" should be a parent who is a woman, and not a man who
> > birthed the child, possibly (currently in most cases) before transition.
>
> Dream on.
>
> > > One could thus
> > > object only if one thinks that it should be used only in the other
> > > sense. Saying "pregnant people" or "people with uterus" or whatever
> > > helps no-one.
> >
> > Tell that to people who are pregnant and not women and feel excluded,
> > who may even get told that they should leave the gynecological practice
> > or maternity ward.
>
> If they feel excluded because they identify as something they are not,
> that is their problem.
>
> > "Pregnant person" doesn't hurt anybody.
>
> Except that it is an insult to people who want to use language
> meaningfully.
>
> Calling me "Oh most glorious master of the universe" doesn't hurt
> anybody, but I don't see any point in trying to force it on others,
> especially not threatening them with death on Twitter.
>
> > > Also, any "transman" getting pregnant is not doing a very good job of
> > > identifying as a man.
> >
> > Now you're limiting again what "man" should mean. Weren't you just
> > complaining that we should let go of those stereotypes?
>
> Stereotypes refer to gender, not sex.
>
> > They usually do it temporarily for the purpose of getting pregnant,
> > similarly to cis women who have difficulty conceiving without medical
> > intervention.
>
> That, SIR, is an insult, and a HUGE one, to real women with fertility
> problems.
>

* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:

> In article <gfk0khgk9bl4$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
>
>>> Even assuming that one accepts your usage guide, as specified above,
>>> i.e. "woman" at least CAN mean "person with the typical anatomy
>>> associated with XX chromosomes", then it is clear from the context that
>>> "pregnant women" uses the term "women" in that sense.
>>
>> No, it could - and should - mean "person who is pregnant and identifies
>> as a woman", as opposed to pregnant men or non-binary people. Therefore,
>> "pregnant woman" isn't inclusive of all pregnant people.
>
> Anyone who is pregnant is, by definition, a woman.

You are not in charge of definitions.

And yours is on the way out. It will go away when the "old cis men" die.

>> Likewise, "mother" should be a parent who is a woman, and not a man who
>> birthed the child, possibly (currently in most cases) before transition.
>
> Dream on.
>
>>> One could thus
>>> object only if one thinks that it should be used only in the other
>>> sense. Saying "pregnant people" or "people with uterus" or whatever
>>> helps no-one.
>>
>> Tell that to people who are pregnant and not women and feel excluded,
>> who may even get told that they should leave the gynecological practice
>> or maternity ward.
>
> If they feel excluded because they identify as something they are not,
> that is their problem.
>
>> "Pregnant person" doesn't hurt anybody.
>
> Except that it is an insult to people who want to use language
> meaningfully.
>
> Calling me "Oh most glorious master of the universe" doesn't hurt
> anybody, but I don't see any point in trying to force it on others,
> especially not threatening with death on Twitter.
>
>>> Also, any "transman" getting pregnant is not doing a very good job of
>>> identifying as a man.
>>
>> Now you're limiting again what "man" should mean. Weren't you just
>> complaining that we should let go of those stereotypes?
>
> Stereotypes refer to gender, not sex.

Yes, and in "pregnant man", "man" is obviously referring to gender.
Nobody is "doing a good or bad job" of being a biological male or female
any more than they're doing a good or bad job at having blue or brown
eyes.

But sex doesn't mean anything in society, not any more than blue or
brown eyes. Only gender means something in society. Most of the time,
you can't even see what kind of genitals someone has - you just guess
their gender based on their stereotypical appearance, and then you
expect that their sex is probably in accordance with the perceived
gender.

That is the practice, but you are stuck in theory land in this
discussion. Yours is the fantasy land, because you wish everything was
as neat as human life isn't. Society isn't. Humans are cultural by
nature, and nature means nothing to them except through the lens of
culture. So they invented gender to make sex understandable. Many
thousands of years ago.

>> They usually do it temporarily for the purpose of getting pregnant,
>> similarly to cis women who have difficulty conceiving without medical
>> intervention.
>
> That, SIR, is an insult, and a HUGE won, to real women with fertility
> problems.

Ok, you're not only team TERF, you're a full-on transphobe, and any
further discussion is useless. Well, I leave the above for the benefit
of others in the group.

Don't wait for an answer to your email. I could try to explain, but I'll
save that for people who seem open to listen.

--
Mein Name ist Dr. Wendy Watt ein Legitime Seriöse Geld Lender.
-- SPAMPOESIE

On 12/31/21 10:56 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <8KudnZZqaPONMFL8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/31/21 11:18 AM, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * Dorothy J Heydt:
>>>
>>>> In article <sql377$jdl$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
>>>>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2021/12/30
>>>>>
>>>>> I am with rat.......
>>>>
>>>> WHAT??????
>>>>
>>>> /reads comic, dashes sweat from brow
>>>>
>>>> I had read that as the equivalent of a woman being with child.
>>>
>>> Seriously? Have you ever seen a "I'm with stupid" shirt?
>>>
>>>> And you're the wrong gender.
>>>
>>> Are they? "Lynn" is an 86% female name according to my source.
>>>
>>> Besides, not only women get pregnant.
>>
>> There are those who would dispute that, and quite vociferously.
>>
>> But aside from that, I have a vague memory of some author (perhaps a
>> fictional one) claiming to be “with book”.
>>
> There's a line in C. S. Lewis's [male] novel _Till We Have
> Faces_, describing a woman [never married nor bore children] who,
> deciding that she has been horribly wronged, is determined to
> write all about it, saying "I was with book, as a woman is with
> child."
>
I knew I’d seen it somewhere!

--
John W. Kennedy
Algernon Burbage, Lord Roderick, Father Martin, Bishop Baldwin,
King Pellinore, Captain Bailey, Merlin -- A Kingdom for a Stage!

On 1/1/22 4:58 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> "Pregnant person" doesn't hurt anybody.
>
> Except that it is an insult to people who want to use language
> meaningfully.

Congratulation! You’ve just clearly answered Dorothy L. Sayers’ famous
question, “Are Women Human?” in the negative.

--
John W. Kennedy
Algernon Burbage, Lord Roderick, Father Martin, Bishop Baldwin,
King Pellinore, Captain Bailey, Merlin -- A Kingdom for a Stage!

On 02/01/2022 05:09, Quinn C wrote:
[SNIP]
> "person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?
>
Congratulations, you have just stated that my post-hysterectomy partner
is not a Woman.

Not a good try.

Cheers,
Gary B-)