What Does It Mean To Be A "Man" Or A "Woman"?

 


Religion wasn't the topic here.

But this does explain one reason (only one of many)

why someone (anyone qualified) really should take the time 

to call out bullshit ways of thinking;

 whenever bullshit ways of thinking are undermining society's ability to progress.

--

Before I launch into that effort, here, 
let me say this first:

I am NOT endorsing the speaker in this video-clip
nor his organization.

They (he and his organization) 
are very ... hit-and-miss about social controversies. 

Even in this video clip, 
he makes a tremendously consequential error
by verbally-violently attacking and conflating
1.
a hypothetical "wacko" and "idiot" who claims squares and circles are fluid concepts, ... 
vs
2. 
factually-existing people 
who propose that gender is fluid.

Are people who propose that "gender is fluid" "wackos" and "idiots"?
No. 
They're simply mistaking
an issue-specific fogginess 
for a specific-issue clarity. 

That doesn't make someone an "idiot" nor a "wacko". 

So the speaker is NOT being fair. 

Thus, he is not actually furthering the dialogue.

He is not helping us make progress.

And yet,
being the consummate cherry-picker that I am, ... 

 I am cherry-picking the rest of his clipped statement;
which I agree with
both generally and specifically. 

 This doesn't mean I agree with everything else he says on this matter; nor any other matter.

When someone says a correct thing, I give credit where credit is due.

When the same persons say an incorrect thing, 
I give counseling where counseling is due.
 
My allegiance is to
known facts,
sound logic,
and productive ethics.

I speak without tribal allegiance. 

He got something important right.
He got something else important wrong.

------

Setting aside all other issues,
the topic he was talking more specifically about

is gender fluidity. 

I am an ally to LGBT+ persons. 

But the far-left Social Justice Warriors tend not to 'want' allies except whenever allies stick strictly to the demanded script 

of what it's ok to think and say. 

To that, I say:

 I am my own person. 

Being an ally to trans, queer, etc. isn't a "club".

 And yet,

even if it were,

 I'd refuse to join, for the same reason I won't join any ideologically-themed clubs.

Groupthink and group-identity are not legitimate mechanisms for progress. 

Trying to control how people think and speak isn't either. 

Right now, that entire domain of controversy 

is at a crossroads.

 The SJW movement, when it comes to this issue, doesn't have its head on straight; yet.

There is a stark contradiction 

between these two goals:

1. Help society let-go and outgrow gender-trait stereotypes 

vs 

2. Define "gender" by gender-trait stereotypes.

We can't have it both ways.

If someone looks up the list of traits which are being used to define "feminine" and "masculine", 

they'll see a list of traits 

which I have an abundance 

in both columns.

Does that make me "trans", or "queer", or "pan", etc?

 Nope. 

And why not?

Because those lists are bullshit. 

Problem is:

 Both Liberal-SJWs and Conservatives 

buy into that bullshit.

So they're both wrong, on that one matter.

And yet, of course, they disagree about most other related matters.

Conservatives say that "gender" is a biological statement. 

Liberal SJWs disagree.

But that is always what it meant, in the before-recent past.

So what the Liberal SJWs are arguing for is changing the meaning of a word

and then pretending the new meaning was always the legitimate meaning of the word.

But that's silly.

Dictionaries are descriptive; not prescriptive.

There's nothing to be gained 

by competing over the meanings of words.

But there's a lot to lose, by doing that; because it increases the pushback/resistance that forward-thinkers get

when they try to present new ways of thinking,
or
reveal and defend old-but-closeted ways of feeling and thinking. 

SJWs should, instead, be proposing a new word (seriously, make one up) to express the idea of 

"gender identity" where "identity" has nothing to do with anatomy. 

Problem is:

 What are they basing it on?

They're basing it on:

the list of traits historically/traditionally used to identify how biological-males are different from biological-females. 

And yet, at the same time, they're arguing that biology has nothing to do with it.

Those gender-stereotypes aren't objectively factual. 

Those stereotypes are rooted in the cultural belief that those stereotypes are the "true", "healthy", or "right" manifestations and expressions of sexual-physiology;

ie "this is the correct way to be male" and "this is the correct way to be female". 

This means:

In order to disavow gender-trait stereotypes (something SJWs are already trying to do), ...

it's a blatant contradiction to site gender-traits as the "true" basis of "gender". 

Now, some could (as some do) say "that's not what we mean". But then the problem becomes:

 What DO they mean?

Answer:

 They do not know what they mean.

Thus, they shouldn't be saying it. 

Bottom line:

 While only MOST humans have a simple sexual physiology, ... 

sexual physiology remains the only rational criteria for defining "gender". 

It makes zero sense for them to say "my gender is male" or "my gender is female", until they have a definition for "male" or "female" that isn't rooted in sexual-physiology and sexual-physiology stereotypes;

 since they are rejecting sexual-physiology as what defines "male" vs "female", and also rejecting those stereotypes. 

 It makes no sense to base one's own use of words ... in concepts which they themselves reject. 

What is a "man" or "male"?

They don't know. But they'll still "identify" as something they don't have a definition for. 

What is "woman" or a "female"?

They don't know. But they'll still "identify" as something they don't have a definition for. 

Truth is:

 Once (other) trans, queer, pan, and their SJW-allies realize they don't have a definition for those words (at least, not any definition they can posit without contradicting themselves), ...

they'll realize:

the only coherent definitions we (any of us) have 

(which we can choose from)
are the definitions which affirm either:

a.) biology; without invoking bullshit stereotypes 

or 

b.) gender-character-traits; which are specifically bullshit stereotypes. 

Examples: 

A man is 'less of a man' to be compassionate. 

A woman is less of a woman to be a good leader. 

or

c.) an "aesthetic" of physical and behavioral traits (including body language); 

-  which appeals to both genetic and culturally-instilled forces of attraction;

  -which is valued individually, 

 and has:

 no absolute right-or-wrong 

and 

 no objective definition.  

--
--

I AM 

a true ally 

to LGBT+ ("+" means "etc."). 

But in my recent efforts to get "caught up" with our evolving language,
as many of us humans attempt to express our evolving realizations, ... 

 

I have accidentally surpassed the people I was trying to catch up with. 

In yet another matter,

 it is time again
 to lead. 

Once again,
I lament
that there's even a need to lead. 

I take no pleasure in the civic duties which come with heightened awareness. 
Frankly, it's exhausting. 

People should be figuring this stuff out on their own. 

Trans, queer, pan, etc...
are all fellow humans
whom are deserving of compassion, respect, and equal (same as everyone else's) rights. 

How anyone "feels" 
simply is how they feel.

No one chooses how they feel.
Physics always determines that. 
So, then,
feeling one way 
or another way
is not ever really a moral success or failure. 

An LGBT+ person does not ever 
owe it to anyone else 
to feel differently about their own sexuality. 

And yet, 
"woman" has biological definition.

[Although, as a side note, I think we should stop using this word, because it means "from man" and it based on sexist Hebrew-religious folklore. But I don't want to go off topic here.] 
 
"Man" also has biological definition. 

Anyone can use some other definitions,....
just as soon as:
they have some other definition they can propose
which is specific, coherent and consistent. 

Meanwhile, 
I'd invite them to realize how impractical it is
to even try. 

It doesn't make any sense to pretend like male and female don't rationally exist as types of physiology. 

Nor does it make sense when someone appeals to stereotypes they themselves do-and-should reject.

Nor does it make sense to treat
culturally-enforced
and
subjectively mix-and-matched
aesthetics 
as objective categories of
masculine and feminine aesthetics. 

Responsible use of language
is an issue of practical social effect.

Irresponsible use of language 
carries real consequence to society;
and thus:
to people's lives. 

That makes it an issue of ethics. 

When ideologically ... overly emotionally-invested persons 
 (no matter how well-intending) aggressively resist their civic duties to speak meaningfully and consistently, 
they undermine our collective efforts to advance in the domains of which they speak.