On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 17:41:58 -0500, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* 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.

And after a while it will be realized that "men" and "women" have
become meaningless terms, they will be either discarded or used to
refer to fashions, and new ones will arise to distinguish those who
have the equipment to become pregnant from those who have the
equipment to make them so.

In article <1ur8nhdky0eqi.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:

> * 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 YOU are? Or the "transwomen are women" crowd are somehow,
magically, in charge of definitions? Says who?

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

Why don't you just come right out and say that you plan to kill them?

> 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.

Right, I don't care, which is why I see no reason to abuse terms like
"man" and "woman" to make them apply to 1950s gender roles.

> >> 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.

So, again, you magically think that you get to define terms?

* J. Clarke:

> And after a while it will be realized that "men" and "women" have
> become meaningless terms, they will be either discarded or used to
> refer to fashions, and new ones will arise to distinguish those who
> have the equipment to become pregnant from those who have the
> equipment to make them so.

For the people who think the most important information about every
person they meet is whether they could get them pregnant, yes. Can't do
anything about those. But I try to keep away from them.

For me, in 99% of my interactions with strangers, fucking doesn't come
to mind. But I may be special.

--
Gehören Sie auch zu billigeren Geschenk für Ihre Freunde wollen
-- SPAMPOESIE

* Gary R. Schmidt:

> 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.

You completely missed the point: Yes, I've excluded her from the set of
people who might get pregnant.

That is the real problem: if you mean "person who might get pregnant" or
"person who menstruates" but say "woman", you overlook a lot of women,
like your partner, like those who are post-menopausal or who are
infertile for whatever other reason.

The point is exactly not to use something vague like "woman" or a
synonym when the subject is menstruation or pregnancy, but precisely
characterize people who have the anatomical prerequisites for the state
in question. It takes more than a uterus to get pregnant, but naming all
of them would be too long, so that's a good enough shorthand in many
cases.

--
Babys essen immer nicht gut. Reis und Brot, sogar Wasser oder
Milch kann in die Tasche gehalten werden.
-- SPAMPOESIE

On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 12:17:29 -0500, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* J. Clarke:
>
>> And after a while it will be realized that "men" and "women" have
>> become meaningless terms, they will be either discarded or used to
>> refer to fashions, and new ones will arise to distinguish those who
>> have the equipment to become pregnant from those who have the
>> equipment to make them so.
>
>For the people who think the most important information about every
>person they meet is whether they could get them pregnant, yes. Can't do
>anything about those. But I try to keep away from them.
>
>For me, in 99% of my interactions with strangers, fucking doesn't come
>to mind. But I may be special.

If you identify as male and present with abdominal swelling the fact
that you have a functioning uterus and ovaries can be very helpful to
the physician. He'll probably figure this out after he's got your
clothes off, but until then he's going to be working from erroneous
assumptions.

* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:

> In article <1ur8nhdky0eqi.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
>
>> * 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 YOU are? Or the "transwomen are women" crowd are somehow,
> magically, in charge of definitions? Says who?

I wasn't declaring right or wrong, true or false, but reported what
sensible and polite people use in real life in my experience. I'm a
linguist and therefore lean strongly towards description, not
prescription.

I wouldn't want the impolite people to be in charge, though, there's my
bias.

>> And yours is on the way out. It will go away when the "old cis men" die.
>
> Why don't you just come right out and say that you plan to kill them?

Not the same thing at all, and equating it is name-calling of the worst
kind. I think everyone can see who's the hater in this exchange.

When it comes to societal changes, a lot of old people never come
around; that's not a new thing. And it's not worth trying to sway them
beyond a certain point.

>>>> 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.
>
> So, again, you magically think that you get to define terms?

No definition involved here, just an observation on your behavior.

--
Learning the rules that govern intelligible speech is an
inculcation into normalized language, where the price of not
conforming is the loss of intelligibility itself.
-- Judith Butler

* J. Clarke:

> On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 12:17:29 -0500, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* J. Clarke:
>>
>>> And after a while it will be realized that "men" and "women" have
>>> become meaningless terms, they will be either discarded or used to
>>> refer to fashions, and new ones will arise to distinguish those who
>>> have the equipment to become pregnant from those who have the
>>> equipment to make them so.
>>
>>For the people who think the most important information about every
>>person they meet is whether they could get them pregnant, yes. Can't do
>>anything about those. But I try to keep away from them.
>>
>>For me, in 99% of my interactions with strangers, fucking doesn't come
>>to mind. But I may be special.
>
> If you identify as male and present with abdominal swelling the fact
> that you have a functioning uterus and ovaries can be very helpful to
> the physician. He'll probably figure this out after he's got your
> clothes off, but until then he's going to be working from erroneous
> assumptions.

I don't see how that relates to what I said above, but OK.

Overweight women also don't appreciate the question "are you pregnant?"
Just something to keep in mind.
--
Wenn Sie interessiert sind, mit mir freundlicherweise nach vorn
unten Angaben arbeiten:
-- SPAMPOESIE

Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote in
news:1fzw7h8dcq73w.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info:

> I wouldn't want the impolite people to be in charge, though,
> there's my bias.

Well, there's your error. You imagine they're in charge, like they do
themselves.

And some people *need* to have everyone be impolite to them.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <1fzw7h8dcq73w.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:

> I wasn't declaring right or wrong, true or false, but reported what
> sensible and polite people use in real life in my experience. I'm a
> linguist and therefore lean strongly towards description, not
> prescription.

My experience is that many who conform are doing so not because they are
sensible and polite (which they are), but because of fear of getting
cancelled or even killed by the woke.

On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 3:20:53 AM UTC-6, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <>, Quinn C
> <> writes:
>
> > I wasn't declaring right or wrong, true or false, but reported what
> > sensible and polite people use in real life in my experience. I'm a
> > linguist and therefore lean strongly towards description, not
> > prescription.
> My experience is that many who conform are doing so not because they are
> sensible and polite (which they are), but because of fear of getting
> cancelled or even killed by the woke.

And my second place word of the 2021 year going into 2022 is "OMICRON" when referred to CRAPPO COVID VARIANTS!

On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 09:20:52 -0000 (UTC),
helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de (Phillip Helbig (undress to reply))
wrote:

>In article <1fzw7h8dcq73w.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
><lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
>
>> I wasn't declaring right or wrong, true or false, but reported what
>> sensible and polite people use in real life in my experience. I'm a
>> linguist and therefore lean strongly towards description, not
>> prescription.
>
>My experience is that many who conform are doing so not because they are
>sensible and polite (which they are), but because of fear of getting
>cancelled or even killed by the woke.

That's the first time I've ever seen "woke" applied to Trump's base or
the alt-right.

But it seems ... appropriate ... somehow.

Given their efforts to cancel all of history to satisfy their beliefs.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:

> In article <1fzw7h8dcq73w.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
>
>> I wasn't declaring right or wrong, true or false, but reported what
>> sensible and polite people use in real life in my experience. I'm a
>> linguist and therefore lean strongly towards description, not
>> prescription.
>
> My experience is that many who conform are doing so not because they are
> sensible and polite (which they are), but because of fear of getting
> cancelled or even killed by the woke.

Sure, NRA members are afraid of being killed by bespectacled academics.
Very convincing projection.

I've often wondered why people seem to be so afraid of those like trans
people who are at the very bottom of the foodchain, often jobless,
homeless, reduced to sex work and drugs, because society offers them no
other place. Maybe it's because despite all that oppression and
punishment, they still refuse to bend to the tyranny of normalcy. They
just can't be whipped into obedience. Maybe that's the ultimate horror
to the normies.

--
BITTE AUSFUILLEN DEIN DATAS AUS UNTEN.
-- SPAMPOESIE

In article <9gicz53z04hf$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:

> I've often wondered why people seem to be so afraid of those like trans
> people who are at the very bottom of the foodchain, often jobless,
> homeless, reduced to sex work and drugs, because society offers them no
> other place. Maybe it's because despite all that oppression and
> punishment, they still refuse to bend to the tyranny of normalcy. They
> just can't be whipped into obedience. Maybe that's the ultimate horror
> to the normies.

In probably less than two minutes, Google should point you to many death
threats issued by "transwomen".

Note that the current gender-critical positions arose only after the
ridiculous demands of the "transwomen are women" crowd. No sensible
person has a problem with non-militant transwomen, most of whom ar
"really" trans, but now that self-identification is the only criterion,
it is not only open to abuse, but is being abused.

Note that there are also transwomen, even on Twitter, who agree with my
position.

* helbig@asclothestro.multivax.dePhillip Helbig:

> In article <9gicz53z04hf$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> writes:
>
>> I've often wondered why people seem to be so afraid of those like trans
>> people who are at the very bottom of the foodchain, often jobless,
>> homeless, reduced to sex work and drugs, because society offers them no
>> other place. Maybe it's because despite all that oppression and
>> punishment, they still refuse to bend to the tyranny of normalcy. They
>> just can't be whipped into obedience. Maybe that's the ultimate horror
>> to the normies.
>
> In probably less than two minutes, Google should point you to many death
> threats issued by "transwomen".

How many murders committed by trans women, ever? More than a handful?
How many of them for trans-ideological motives? Pretty sure it's 0.

How many murders committed of trans women? Hundreds every year. How many
of them for trans-ideological motives? Many of them.

That's real numbers that count for something, not some abstract threat.
> Note that the current gender-critical positions arose only after the
> ridiculous demands of the "transwomen are women" crowd. No sensible
> person has a problem with non-militant transwomen, most of whom ar
> "really" trans, but now that self-identification is the only criterion,
> it is not only open to abuse, but is being abused.

I've yet to hear of any incident of any kind involving a person using a
suspicious claim of being trans. I think it would have popped up in my
trans grapevine, because such people might give us a bad name, but I
don't know that anybody does that, ever. Who likes to impersonate one of
the most hated and oppressed groups in society?

If you have any examples, I'd be interested.

> Note that there are also transwomen, even on Twitter, who agree with my
> position.

Which means nothing. Some trans people are raging transphobes.

You know, I grew up in Germany, and that means that nobody around me,
not a single soul, believed in the 1980s that people were killing
infants in Satanic rituals. To us, that was a horror trope exactly as
likely as vampires and werewolves.

I was shocked to learn, quite recently, that in North America, they had
actual court cases about such goings-on, and some people indeed went to
jail for such abuses which in fact never happened anywhere anytime,
ever, no more than any real witches in Salem.

I can only hope that in 30 years, or even earlier, you will recognize
that the trans panic of today is exactly like the Satanic panic of
yesteryear. "Moral panic" is the word, and Americans seem to be
especially susceptible to them. Sorry if you're not one of them, but
that would be my best guess from what you write.

--
Queer people shuttle between worlds each time they look up from
their smartphones at the people gathered around the family table;
as they climb the steps from the underground nightclub back into
the nation-state. In one world, time quickens; in the other it
dawdles. Spending your life criss-crossing from world to world can
make you quite dizzy. - Mark Gevisser