This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
🤔 doesn't this come down to the familiar 'gender is not sex' statements? I don't know that anyone has ever tried to argue that humans aren't pretty binary as far as the particular equipment setups. (even with some rounding numbers for dual equipped people, one set it always more functional than the other), and the abbreviation for b isn't bigenderal, it's bisexual, so I'm not sure this lines up, really.
@dirge sex is binary. That’s the foundation of humanity. If we already agree the ‘equipment’ is pretty much two setups, why are we being asked to pretend that the foundation has suddenly multiplied just because of how someone feels?
@userfawkes1105 well we're diverging significantly right off the bat, you say the foundation of humanity. I can agree with the foundation of biology, but humanity has a much wider spread. kinda like the foundation for biology says you're pretty much an autotroph or a heterotroph, if you layer in job title to help quantify 'how you eat', all humans end up with heterotroph basis, but a really huge range for how they manage to eat. or even what and how well they will eat.
@dirge Biology is the foundation. Humanity’s variety sits on top of it, not instead of it.
@userfawkes1105 I don't think I'm disagreeing with that, except maybe in that it can, and in many cases does expand on it. so something can be connected/related to a lower, biological level, but human complexity expands on it. sometimes greatly.
here's something I always though was an interesting (although mostly a tangent) example - did you know that for years and years with language, there was just no word for blue. what we call blue now was mostly referred to as 'black'. humans had no way to reproduce the color - they hadn't found the right combination of ground lapis and whatever. things are often used now to make a blue pigment, so as far as the world was concerned, there was no such thing as 'blue', despite looking at it every single day. just an example of how our notion of even very basic things like color can change.
here's something I always though was an interesting (although mostly a tangent) example - did you know that for years and years with language, there was just no word for blue. what we call blue now was mostly referred to as 'black'. humans had no way to reproduce the color - they hadn't found the right combination of ground lapis and whatever. things are often used now to make a blue pigment, so as far as the world was concerned, there was no such thing as 'blue', despite looking at it every single day. just an example of how our notion of even very basic things like color can change.
@dirge Not having a word for blue didn’t make the sky stop being blue just like adding new labels doesn’t change the biology underneath.
@userfawkes1105 well,youre getting there. now think of it reversed. the color was always there, and eventually humanity and consciousness expanded enough to need a word for it.
@dirge right but the biology hasn’t n won’t change regardless of what new label is given. Unless u find a new biological addition to the binary. Biological being the keyword there.
@userfawkes1105 i thought we had already gone through that and pretty much agreed - sex is a biological descriptor. hard limits based on physical components that are expressed from dna. gender is tied to humanity and subject to changes. quite probably a social construct that at one time was tied strictly to sex characteristics, but some people elect to go beyond that.
@dirge so because of some one’s choice we must redefine? If I choose to call the sky green u must redefine then by that logic.
@userfawkes1105 if you get enough people to agree to it, yeah. you sound kinda skeptical, but words have a long tradition of switching up and sliding around in their meaning. cleave is a fairly simple example, it means to split something apart. but also to stick two things together. it's usually not something quite so solidly persistent and outside individual interpretation as the color of the sky and very few people would agree or see a need to shift the color names around, but something that's far more personal and capable of individual nuance, it kinda just makes sense.
@dirge then the word enough is too vague because as of now the gender sex thing is within the minority not majority which renders your point irrelevant to the argument. So I say again all due to some one’s choice not a majority but again some one’s. But I see where ur coming from.
@userfawkes1105 I'm not sure how you can jump from 'your point is irrelevent' to 'I see where you're coming from' so easily, but I don't think it's an irrelevant point at all. and you keep on with 'someone's choice' statements like it's one weird kid from the backwoods of alabama when it's clearly not - the whole point is that there are enough people who feel this way that it's become something that the rest of society sees. you can continue to mock and dismiss all you want but you should keep in mind at some point the tables will turn and things you feel are important and worthy of others consideration even if they have no interest in them may well end up being mocked and ignored cuz 'you're just a minority'
@dirge it’s just that I’m kinda tiered of the argument and tried agree to disagree. globally those people are a minority in my opinion. It’s just an agenda in the USA maybe enough of a count within those borders but globally they are still a minority and the rest are not really demanding a change like u say. Considering that count as enough from a global perspective is probably different from my point of view than from yours because we will see it a binary everywhere else.
