If gender is a social construct, what about age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Note the meaningful distinction between "Most human beings have two legs" and "Human beings have two legs".

This is where it becomes ridiculous. Anyone who gets offended by someone saying 'human beings have two legs' is being ridiculous. Humans are supposed to have two legs. There are a multitude of reasons a specific human might not have two legs. Those reasons are all medical conditions based on accidents or genetic anomalies. Do you object to saying 'dogs have four legs'? Some dogs have three legs. But if you go around muddying the waters on everything then you can't say anything at all. When I teach my kid about humans and dogs I say, 'dogs have four legs and humans have two legs' and then you talk about exceptions as they arise or when you talk about handicapped people.

I am a liberal with a transgender cousin who I fully support in living her life they way she wants to live it, but I do not think that she is neurotypical or that her brain works in a way that the human brain is evolutionarily designed to work.

I'm not saying that I'm offended. (This is because I'm not offended.) I'm saying that "Human beings have two legs" is a factually-incorrect statement.

So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?

Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?

How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Note the meaningful distinction between "Most human beings have two legs" and "Human beings have two legs".

This is where it becomes ridiculous. Anyone who gets offended by someone saying 'human beings have two legs' is being ridiculous. Humans are supposed to have two legs. There are a multitude of reasons a specific human might not have two legs. Those reasons are all medical conditions based on accidents or genetic anomalies. Do you object to saying 'dogs have four legs'? Some dogs have three legs. But if you go around muddying the waters on everything then you can't say anything at all. When I teach my kid about humans and dogs I say, 'dogs have four legs and humans have two legs' and then you talk about exceptions as they arise or when you talk about handicapped people.

I am a liberal with a transgender cousin who I fully support in living her life they way she wants to live it, but I do not think that she is neurotypical or that her brain works in a way that the human brain is evolutionarily designed to work.

I'm not saying that I'm offended. (This is because I'm not offended.) I'm saying that "Human beings have two legs" is a factually-incorrect statement.

So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?

Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?

How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?

Well, I don't know if there are any horses that don't have four legs.

As for the other statements, though: yes, they're factually incorrect. Especially the one about chimpanzees having tails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Note the meaningful distinction between "Most human beings have two legs" and "Human beings have two legs".

This is where it becomes ridiculous. Anyone who gets offended by someone saying 'human beings have two legs' is being ridiculous. Humans are supposed to have two legs. There are a multitude of reasons a specific human might not have two legs. Those reasons are all medical conditions based on accidents or genetic anomalies. Do you object to saying 'dogs have four legs'? Some dogs have three legs. But if you go around muddying the waters on everything then you can't say anything at all. When I teach my kid about humans and dogs I say, 'dogs have four legs and humans have two legs' and then you talk about exceptions as they arise or when you talk about handicapped people.

I am a liberal with a transgender cousin who I fully support in living her life they way she wants to live it, but I do not think that she is neurotypical or that her brain works in a way that the human brain is evolutionarily designed to work.

I'm not saying that I'm offended. (This is because I'm not offended.) I'm saying that "Human beings have two legs" is a factually-incorrect statement.

So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?

Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?

How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?

Well, I don't know if there are any horses that don't have four legs.

As for the other statements, though: yes, they're factually incorrect. Especially the one about chimpanzees having tails.

Talk about pedantic.

Most intelligent people accept the fact that having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans, and anything else is an anomaly. If you need to point out that this is "factually incorrect" (which it is not), then I don't know what else to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Talk about pedantic.

Most intelligent people accept the fact that having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans, and anything else is an anomaly. If you need to point out that this is "factually incorrect" (which it is not), then I don't know what else to say.

Yes, having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans. So say that. "Having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans."

But really, look it up about chimpanzees. Having a tail is not the normal condition for chimpanzees. They're apes, like humans. Having a tail is also not the normal condition for humans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Talk about pedantic.

Most intelligent people accept the fact that having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans, and anything else is an anomaly. If you need to point out that this is "factually incorrect" (which it is not), then I don't know what else to say.

Yes, having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans. So say that. "Having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans."

But really, look it up about chimpanzees. Having a tail is not the normal condition for chimpanzees. They're apes, like humans. Having a tail is also not the normal condition for humans.

You got me on chimps, I should have googled first, switch out chimps for lemurs. But the point stands. You are making language too complicated. Changing language so it needs to be all inclusive all the time is cumbersome, difficult to understand and not a realistic goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?

Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?

How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?

Do you have the faintest idea how common hysterectomies are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Talk about pedantic.

Most intelligent people accept the fact that having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans, and anything else is an anomaly. If you need to point out that this is "factually incorrect" (which it is not), then I don't know what else to say.

Yes, having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans. So say that. "Having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans."

But really, look it up about chimpanzees. Having a tail is not the normal condition for chimpanzees. They're apes, like humans. Having a tail is also not the normal condition for humans.

You really need to have that said? You really need to have it pointed out that there are exceptions to every rule? One can no longer say "it's dark at night" because some areas (the exception, not the rule) have white nights? So when talking to people, I need to say "in areas other than parts of Russia, it is dark at night"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?

Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?

How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?

Do you have the faintest idea how common hysterectomies are?

This may possibly be the dumbest comment I've ever read on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Most intelligent people accept the fact that having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans, and anything else is an anomaly. If you need to point out that this is "factually incorrect" (which it is not), then I don't know what else to say.

We expend considerable time and effort to make life easier for humans with many physical challenges, including not having two legs.

We should also structure our society to be decent and humane towards the large number of people who have are born with the chromosomes and genitals of one sex, but who identify strongly with the other, to the point where denying them their identity is painful to them. That includes allowing them to go the bathroom where they feel comfortable (and certainly not boycotting retailers who choose to allow that). I don't think anything else is seriously at issue for most people, unless you are writing some academic dissertation on gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You got me on chimps, I should have googled first, switch out chimps for lemurs. But the point stands. You are making language too complicated. Changing language so it needs to be all inclusive all the time is cumbersome, difficult to understand and not a realistic goal.

It's not about being inclusive. It's about being accurate. This is especially important when we're talking about science. The original claim was that gender is established at conception. This is factually incorrect. There are plenty of instances where sex (let alone gender) is NOT established at conception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?

Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?

How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?

Do you have the faintest idea how common hysterectomies are?

That is kind of my point. Even in cases like that, where there are a significant subset of women who no longer have their uterus, it is still a defining trait of being a woman (or people with an XY chromosome) to have a reproductive system. When you are talking about the human species, how it exists and grows etc etc the two sex structure is essential. And the differences between them are basically all about reproduction when it comes down to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Talk about pedantic.

Most intelligent people accept the fact that having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans, and anything else is an anomaly. If you need to point out that this is "factually incorrect" (which it is not), then I don't know what else to say.

Yes, having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans. So say that. "Having 2 legs is the normal condition for humans."

But really, look it up about chimpanzees. Having a tail is not the normal condition for chimpanzees. They're apes, like humans. Having a tail is also not the normal condition for humans.

You really need to have that said? You really need to have it pointed out that there are exceptions to every rule? One can no longer say "it's dark at night" because some areas (the exception, not the rule) have white nights? So when talking to people, I need to say "in areas other than parts of Russia, it is dark at night"?

You can say anything you like. English has ambiguities. Most are not hurtful to anyone. A few are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?

Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?

How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?

Do you have the faintest idea how common hysterectomies are?

This may possibly be the dumbest comment I've ever read on DCUM.

Why? Some women don't have a uterus because they were born without one. Some women don't have a uterus because they had a hysterectomy. How do women who don't have a uterus fit into the statement "women have a uterus"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You got me on chimps, I should have googled first, switch out chimps for lemurs. But the point stands. You are making language too complicated. Changing language so it needs to be all inclusive all the time is cumbersome, difficult to understand and not a realistic goal.

It's not about being inclusive. It's about being accurate. This is especially important when we're talking about science. The original claim was that gender is established at conception. This is factually incorrect. There are plenty of instances where sex (let alone gender) is NOT established at conception.

In humans, those are anomalies. And just like if you have a heart condition at birth and then go on to fix it you were still born with a heart, if you were born at birth XY or XX you were born male or female regardless of how long it took to confirm based on a birth defect. And if you have an extra chromosome it is the same thing, an anomoly that is not relevant to anyone other than the small subset of people effected by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, 'dogs have four legs' 'horses have four legs' 'women have a uterus' 'men have a penis' 'chimpanzees have a tail' are all factually incorrect?

Or do we now have to attach the word most/all to any declarative statement?

How do you refer to the qualities of a species globally?

Do you have the faintest idea how common hysterectomies are?

That is kind of my point. Even in cases like that, where there are a significant subset of women who no longer have their uterus, it is still a defining trait of being a woman (or people with an XY chromosome) to have a reproductive system. When you are talking about the human species, how it exists and grows etc etc the two sex structure is essential. And the differences between them are basically all about reproduction when it comes down to it.

XX! Typo pp before you accuse me of not googling again!