Some people think this issue will be like gay rights and will just take time to resolve but this issue will be controversial until the end of time because there will never be a consensus on whether biological or gender identity is the more important one in every circumstance.
I think you missed what I wrote a couple days ago here.
It will likely NOT be until the end of time, because technology will catch up with this problem and render it moot. As long as we don't destroy ourselves first (nukes, climate change, etc.), we're likely to have perfect functional sex-changes, within the lifetime of many (most?) reading this site. Not to mention horns, tails, gills, extra limbs, etc. When bodies and sex become that fluid, I expect it's going to get harder to motivate people to hate based on sex. A lot of that energy will probably be directed against people taking on animal characteristics. Because while humans progress, we also like our petty moralizing and religious narrowmindedness. :-(
While I'm not a religious person, there is a lack of respect exhibited in the last sentence that is ironically dismissive, narrow-minded and denigrating
It is dismissive, unironically, and denigrating - to a certain subset of religious people. But it's not narrowminded. I've known many religious people, and I respect some of them. The others, not so much. But I'm not obligated to respect them in order to be part of a functional society. I simply have to recognize that I don't get to decide how they live their lives, and treat them with politeness when interacting with them, at least until they actively provide a reason not to be polite. For example, by trying to tell others how to live *their* lives.
Put another way, I didn't say "we like our narrowminded religions", which you could plausibly call an attack on religion in general (though it might still not be). I said "religious narrowmindedness", which is definitely a real thing, and does not make any statement about *all* religious belief systems or behaviors.
The supposition is that people or societies "don't have the right to define things" is not only objectively wrong, it is, as a position, attempting to define how others think, which is counterintuitive to the argument posited.
You can say that, but it doesn't make it so, or even a rational statement.
If you want to agree with other people on a definition of a term, by all means feel free to do so. I don't get to tell you not to do that.
If you want to enforce that definition on all of society, then you can just f*** off. *That* is attempting to define how others think.
If you want to label anyone with XY chromosomes a man, and call them "he", then that's your right. It's also the right of a trans woman so labelled by you to be offended by your unwillingness to see her the way she does, and therefore not associate with you. She doesn't get to enforce a penalty on you for your choice - but neither do you get to insist that she subject her self-labeling to a genetics test. You have to accept that others will use words in ways that you don't. Arguing with them because their definition is different than yours is futile and foolish; if you don't understand that the definition is contested, then you remove yourself from the group of people capable of rational discussion.
It is true that the government can legislate a definition of a word for legal purposes. This has been a source of much conflict in the past (for obvious example, defining "marriage" in a restrictive way). But until it does, nobody else gets to. And do you really want it to? A lot of conservatives like their "don't tread on me" flag; keeping the government out of private lives has a lot of backing on both sides of the political spectrum. At least, when it's convenient - some people like to pick and choose whose lives the government should be meddling in.
For example - you will never "convince" vast numbers of people that a homosexuality is "understandable,", yet there are countless efforts to push hard on those with this viewpoint - from a political/social engineering/media perspective. Why is one PoV ok but not the other? This is not to say this lack of understanding should permit such people treat homosexuals with any less respect in any facets of life or work - that's a very different issue. But trying to "convince" people who have a certain belief system to the point of derision and denigration is as, or more, guilty than the supposed offense.
You are using a famous fallacy to argue a weak position. "If you insist on being tolerant then you must tolerate the intolerant" is a foolish argument based on a deliberate misunderstanding of the word "tolerant". Being tolerant means I'm OK with you being straight, gay, bi, trans, etc. It does NOT mean I accept you trying to take power over others.
As for trying to convince people... everyone does that all the time. And sometimes they are rude and obnoxious about it, and yes, that applies to people on the left as well as on the right. But if you think people on the left are worse about it, then you haven't met the evangelists I have. But also, and more importantly, there are grave and egregious flaws in our society that are *killing people* today due to intolerance. How many people have died because some overstuffed liberal got offended at something? Zero. How many gay teens have committed suicide, though? How many with body dysphoria?
If one says "it's all ok - everyone is different", then one needs to apply that thinking as well to those who actually have very different/opposing thoughts about a subject. This is one of the main issues with wokeism and the extreme extension of such thought (horns, tails, gills and such, or perhaps transgender males performing in female athletics). A different example - The Florida's law to prevent non-parents (teachers) from talking to K-3 kids about sexual orientation/gender issues is not only completely reasonable (this is not the role of a school or teacher), it in fact does not go far enough (from an age perspective), and is thoroughly mis-represented as "Don't Say Gay" legislation. An abhorrent distortion. It's also a law that, quite sadly, is needed, given the nature of what a school curriculum should be focused on but too often completely veers off the rails (ie preparing children to read, write, perform math, and develop free thinking minds not subject to indoctrination).
Again you seem shaky on basic concepts of rational discussion. You're using an example to prove a point, but your example isn't just contested, it's *famously so*. Putting words in boldface doesn't make them any more true. The fact that I think your position is utterly stupid is not important, especially to you. But the fact that you're trying to use it as an example to make a point shows that you really don't understand: you can't make a point by using a contested example. That only reinforces the disagreement.
So bringing it back to this topic, no one should be surprised when a vast majority of people factually and objectively say a pregnant man emoji is stupid. Nor should one attempt to school them very much, given the obvious nature of the distortion.
Yeah, here you're just totally off the rails:
- It's not a vast majority.
- Calling it stupid is... weird. We've already discussed trans men (born female) who LOOK LIKE men being pregnant. How is the emoji not entirely appropriate for them? And we've show at least one example of a person with XY chromosomes being pregnant (and delivering a child). So there are clearly people that that image can be applied to, whatever your definition of "man" (though the latter case would seem extremely obtuse and probably insulting).
- If by stupid you mean totally implausible (which it demonstrably isn't, see above), well, why aren't you arguing against the unicorn emoji?
If you had said "I really don't think we need this emoji, its use case is extremely limited", then that would be a reasonable position and I doubt anyone would argue with you - though Jason might (and did) write an article explaining how despite that being clearly true, we got that emoji anyway. What causes the bad reaction is bigoted idiots using this meaningless event to launch yet another salvo in their war of outrage that the world doesn't conform to their sad and restrictive viewpoint.
- Not believing/understanding something is not the same thing as intolerance. It may be, but it is not by default at all.
And you used the word tolerant, not me.
- Despite my offensive use of bold type which comprised the entirety of the rebuttal, any comments on the Florida law and the tone of opposition?
Putting aside the stupidity of the pregnant man concept, the larger takeaway is there is far less tolerant content in what you write than opposing view shared by myself and others.
Males can’t get pregnant so I don’t know why such an emoji would exist. It seems pointless. If your sex is male then you can’t have children this can’t be pregnant. All these gender and sex methods that are used to describe people now are so confusing. I remember when non of this really existed before and there were only men and women.
I'm not old enough to remember when blacks had to use separate water fountains, but I *am* old enough to remember when women had to have their husband co-sign for a credit card account.
Did your nostalgia have a point other than celebrating the defense of outdated prejudice?
Men can’t get pregnant. Try and fight the facts and science all you want but men can’t get pregnant. Just like I can’t be a cat, because I am a woman. No matter how I would try to change my appearance, I would still be a woman no matter what.
Men can’t get pregnant. Try and fight the facts and science all you want but men can’t get pregnant. Just like I can’t be a cat, because I am a woman. No matter how I would try to change my appearance, I would still be a woman no matter what.
Sigh. Another one.
You know, if you were just someone who fails at semantics and science, you wouldn't be all that objectionable. People can be educated (some, at least). The problem with you is that you think your fear or hate makes it OK for you to talk, without reading at all. Had you bothered to read even a decent fraction of the previous comments, you'd have seen that your statements are not about facts at all, but rather statements of opinion about the meaning of words.
If you want to stick to science and facts, you'd have to say something like "People without a uterus can't get pregnant". That's a true fact (for now, and for at least some years into the near future). Of course, it doesn't really have anything to do with emoji, since people who *look like* the emoji (that is, look male) can and sometimes do get pregnant. This is all easily discovered with a quick web search, as I've written here previously.
And of course, like everyone else complaining, you ignore the Unicorn emoji, the smiling poop, and all the other emoji of things that aren't real. That alone exposes you for what you really are.
"Pregnant man" and "pregnant nonbinary person" are actual real-world things that happen. They exist. Sure, they're uncommon, but they are absolutely 100% real world people.
To not intentionally not include them would be incredibly bigoted.
Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Right wing nutjobs are easily offended snowflakes.
Can trans man become pregnant?
Absolutely.
Not just in principle. Any successful case?
I am confused.. Men don't become men in a trans situation..women do. Women transition into men. If they retain reproductive organs of course they could/can become pregnant. A person in transition or transitioned doesn't necessarily have or want gender reassignment surgery in all cases.
Can a person that is genetically born male get pregnant .. no they cannot. Whether they choose to have gender reassignment or not. If you were not born with a uterus you cannot become pregnant.. period.
Comments
- Not believing/understanding something is not the same thing as intolerance. It may be, but it is not by default at all.
And you used the word tolerant, not me.
- Despite my offensive use of bold type which comprised the entirety of the rebuttal, any comments on the Florida law and the tone of opposition?
Putting aside the stupidity of the pregnant man concept, the larger takeaway is there is far less tolerant content in what you write than opposing view shared by myself and others.
Did your nostalgia have a point other than celebrating the defense of outdated prejudice?
The article might seem to hit logical points, but is not considering that there are already « exceptions » in the emoji system.