most of y’all exposed yourself in the comments today 🤭
Aurora, your comment, the treacherous display that offends my senses, is the twisted logic of a fraud deceiving the naive with a flood of verbose nonsense. The visionary ambitions of this climax of pseudo-scholarship are a distortion of linguistics.
The dictionary isn’t a bastion of authority. The harmonious diversity of an ever-evolving spectrum of gender identities and pronouns reflects the richness of human experience.
A language anchored to a rigid, unchanging dogma of dictionaries would stagnate, its meaning confined and reduced to a barren relic in the museum of prescriptivism. What next, shall we ignore the nuances of context and pragmatics? What sinister plots have conspired to violate the once-celebrated dynamism of language?
Don’t be afraid of “change.” The great Shakespeare himself coined, “brevity is the soul of wit.” If “rose” could be anything from a flower to a casserole dish, the beauty of metaphor would be a lasting fragrance in the breeze.
Aurora, You are conflating sex and gender, which are not the same thing. Sex refers to the biological and physiological…
Aurora,
Wow, your reply is a mess of errors and biases that show how clueless and rude you are about gender identity and diversity. You need to back up your views with evidence and logic, not with assumptions and fallacies. Here are some of the main points that I would like to address:
You seem to assume that the Two-Spirit identity is a product of supernatural beliefs, not a valid and diverse expression of gender and sexuality among Indigenous peoples of North America. How do you justify your claim? What sources or experts do you rely on? How do you account for the realities of Two-Spirit people and their roles in their communities? Do you even know any Two-Spirit people or have you ever listened to their stories and experiences? You claim that the definition of intersex is flawed and overbroad, but you do not provide any evidence or alternative definition. On the contrary, the definition of intersex is based on scientific and medical evidence that shows that sex characteristics are not always binary or aligned. How do you define intersex and why do you think that the current definition is flawed and overbroad? How do you deal with the evidence that shows the diversity and complexity of intersex variations? How do you justify the harmful medical interventions that violate the human rights of intersex people? Do you even care about the health and well-being of intersex people or are you just obsessed with their genitals? You assert that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, but this is not supported by the current diagnostic criteria or the professional consensus. Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person’s gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth, causing distress and discomfort. The treatment for gender dysphoria is to affirm and support the person’s gender identity. How do you diagnose gender dysphoria and why do you think that it is a mental illness? How do you explain the current diagnostic criteria and the professional consensus that do not support your view? How do you evaluate the effectiveness and satisfaction of gender-affirming interventions? Do you even understand the difference between gender identity and sex assigned at birth or are you just confused by your own ignorance? You argue that the absence of objective measures invites the potential for manipulation, but this is a false dilemma that ignores the fluidity and subjectivity of gender identity. Gender identity is not a fixed or objective category, but a fluid and subjective one. It is not a binary choice between male and female, but a spectrum of possibilities. It is not impossible to distinguish between genuine expressions of self-identification and those motivated by ill intentions, but it requires respect, trust, and empathy. How do you measure gender identity and why do you think that the absence of objective measures invites the potential for manipulation? How do you respect, trust, and empathize with the fluidity and subjectivity of gender identity? How do you ensure the social justice and human rights of people who self-identify their gender? Do you even respect the autonomy and dignity of people who self-identify their gender or are you just afraid of their freedom and diversity? You accuse me of oversimplifying the binary gender paradigm, but you are the one who is guilty of this. You claim that the binary gender paradigm is based on scientific knowledge and rooted in evolutionary principles, but you do not provide any evidence or explanation for this claim. On the contrary, the binary gender paradigm is based on social and cultural norms and rooted in patriarchal and heteronormative ideologies. How do you defend the binary gender paradigm and why do you think that it is based on scientific knowledge and rooted in evolutionary principles? How do you acknowledge the social and cultural norms and the patriarchal and heteronormative ideologies that shape the binary gender paradigm? How do you address the harm and oppression that the binary gender paradigm causes to the diversity of gender identity and expression? Do you even realize the limitations and biases of the binary gender paradigm or are you just blind to its consequences and alternatives?
The dictionary isn’t a bastion of authority. The harmonious diversity of an ever-evolving spectrum of gender identities and pronouns reflects the richness of human experience.
A language anchored to a rigid, unchanging dogma of dictionaries would stagnate, its meaning confined and reduced to a barren relic in the museum of prescriptivism. What next, shall we ignore the nuances of context and pragmatics? What sinister plots have conspired to violate the once-celebrated dynamism of language?
Don’t be afraid of “change.” The great Shakespeare himself coined, “brevity is the soul of wit.” If “rose” could be anything from a flower to a casserole dish, the beauty of metaphor would be a lasting fragrance in the breeze.
Wow, your reply is a mess of errors and biases that show how clueless and rude you are about gender identity and diversity. You need to back up your views with evidence and logic, not with assumptions and fallacies. Here are some of the main points that I would like to address:
You seem to assume that the Two-Spirit identity is a product of supernatural beliefs, not a valid and diverse expression of gender and sexuality among Indigenous peoples of North America. How do you justify your claim? What sources or experts do you rely on? How do you account for the realities of Two-Spirit people and their roles in their communities? Do you even know any Two-Spirit people or have you ever listened to their stories and experiences? You claim that the definition of intersex is flawed and overbroad, but you do not provide any evidence or alternative definition. On the contrary, the definition of intersex is based on scientific and medical evidence that shows that sex characteristics are not always binary or aligned. How do you define intersex and why do you think that the current definition is flawed and overbroad? How do you deal with the evidence that shows the diversity and complexity of intersex variations? How do you justify the harmful medical interventions that violate the human rights of intersex people? Do you even care about the health and well-being of intersex people or are you just obsessed with their genitals? You assert that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, but this is not supported by the current diagnostic criteria or the professional consensus. Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person’s gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth, causing distress and discomfort. The treatment for gender dysphoria is to affirm and support the person’s gender identity. How do you diagnose gender dysphoria and why do you think that it is a mental illness? How do you explain the current diagnostic criteria and the professional consensus that do not support your view? How do you evaluate the effectiveness and satisfaction of gender-affirming interventions? Do you even understand the difference between gender identity and sex assigned at birth or are you just confused by your own ignorance? You argue that the absence of objective measures invites the potential for manipulation, but this is a false dilemma that ignores the fluidity and subjectivity of gender identity. Gender identity is not a fixed or objective category, but a fluid and subjective one. It is not a binary choice between male and female, but a spectrum of possibilities. It is not impossible to distinguish between genuine expressions of self-identification and those motivated by ill intentions, but it requires respect, trust, and empathy. How do you measure gender identity and why do you think that the absence of objective measures invites the potential for manipulation? How do you respect, trust, and empathize with the fluidity and subjectivity of gender identity? How do you ensure the social justice and human rights of people who self-identify their gender? Do you even respect the autonomy and dignity of people who self-identify their gender or are you just afraid of their freedom and diversity? You accuse me of oversimplifying the binary gender paradigm, but you are the one who is guilty of this. You claim that the binary gender paradigm is based on scientific knowledge and rooted in evolutionary principles, but you do not provide any evidence or explanation for this claim. On the contrary, the binary gender paradigm is based on social and cultural norms and rooted in patriarchal and heteronormative ideologies. How do you defend the binary gender paradigm and why do you think that it is based on scientific knowledge and rooted in evolutionary principles? How do you acknowledge the social and cultural norms and the patriarchal and heteronormative ideologies that shape the binary gender paradigm? How do you address the harm and oppression that the binary gender paradigm causes to the diversity of gender identity and expression? Do you even realize the limitations and biases of the binary gender paradigm or are you just blind to its consequences and alternatives?