Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My first points were simply about what took/takes place as a matter of fact - people assign sex/gender throughout history. I even linked info on it. Then the argument was made that you can't assign sex because that is not how the word should be used. I showed otherwise! I also went through how the word cisgender came about as a result of some ambiguity with these conflations. IT does not mean that I agree with the ambiguity but that I understand the need for coining new words and even modifying them as people grow in understanding. Don't simplify all my posts into one act of conflation.
You can "show otherwise" all you want, people can still disagree.
You showed otherwise by citing to wiki which can be changed by anyone and citing to a study, again, about fish.
Idk why you are getting so defensive when all people are doing is saying they disagree with the idea that sex can be "assigned." Many people here have said this. I mean, did you invent the phrase or something? Because you're acting like you did with how much you're defending it...
I did read and we do not agree. Sex is not "assigned" at birth for the vast majority of people (excluding the rare intersex where there is ambiguity; but even in that case I do not believe it is "assigned" unless/until someone explicitly decides to, well, pick a sex). It is observed. The rarity of intersex conditions is not large/relevant enough to change terminology, language, meaning; place the same meaning on everyone else whose experience the word does not apply to and that inaccurately describes their experience. My sex was not "assigned," it just is. It was observed at birth and could have been observed before birth, too, if my parents chose for that to happen (they did not). Today, an unborn baby's sex can be determined by testing the mother's blood.
The "progressives" make a parody of themselves with this gender obsession.
11-23-2019, 09:52 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussiehoff
Yes, in your efforts to support the use of the word assign for sex determination in human beings, you quoted a study on sexing fish that discusses the use of 4 alternate methods to reduce error rates. If you can't see why this doesn't support your argument....I don't know what to tell you.
It supports my argument that the word can be used (when you argued that it cannot) in relation to sex determination after observing certain features - in the case of the fish the 4 alternate methods and in my argument genital expression in humans. Your insinuation and misrepresentation of what you think I'm arguing and then refuting that is a strawman.
Quote:
Your post on page 11, when I asserted the use of the word assign is for a specific and well understood purpose (one that you now acknowledge it being due to social justice activism), you responded with "Yeah, it's a conspiracy of definitions and bad language use." with a facepalm. A clear mocking of my point.
Yep!
11-23-2019, 10:00 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
You can "show otherwise" all you want, people can still disagree.
Do you think I disagree with this?
Quote:
You showed otherwise by citing to wiki which can be changed by anyone and citing to a study, again, about fish.
If you have a problem with the sources then deal with them.
Quote:
Idk why you are getting so defensive when all people are doing is saying they disagree with the idea that sex can be "assigned." Many people here have said this. I mean, did you invent the phrase or something? Because you're acting like you did with how much you're defending it...
This is not personal...
Seriously, I'm not the one who jumped in and complained about a word usage. I even later said it would not matter to me if you got rid of the word. Plug in another word and my points prior to the complaint would still work. But I engage when people ask or quote me. But I guess because I'm willing to stick to my guns now I'm the one being obsessive about this word. If you misunderstand and misrepresent my responses then I take the time to correct and call you out on it.
If you have a problem with the sources then deal with them.
Seriously, I'm not the one who jumped in and complained about a word usage. I even later said it would not matter to me if you got rid of the word. Plug in another word and my points prior to the complaint would still work. But I engage when people ask or quote me. But I guess because I'm willing to stick to my guns now I'm the one being obsessive about this word. If you misunderstand and misrepresent my responses then I take the time to correct and call you out on it.
I don't have a problem with your sources, I just don't find them persuasive. I don't think that wikipedia and a scientific article or study is about fish is enough to convince me that it makes total sense to say that doctors or anyone can "assign" a sex to a person.
This entire thread is about word usage - cis. Like threads often do, it has evolved to other issues on the same topic.
11-23-2019, 10:09 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussiehoff
haha, I'm sure inside your head you are making a lot of sense. Its just us stupid people who don't recognise your acumen. Am I right?
Keep acting like you don't care but then do! Don't get upset just because you contradict yourself.
I'm sorry...but...WinTF is a 'cis' gender? Is that a Kardashian thing?
11-23-2019, 10:17 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
I don't have a problem with your sources, I just don't find them persuasive. I don't think that wikipedia and a scientific article or study is about fish is enough to convince me that it makes total sense to say that doctors or anyone can "assign" a sex to a person.
The article pointed out that in even a scientific context the word is used not in an arbitrary way, as you noted in accusation of my position, but in exactly the way in which I described. It's a fact and these editors and scientists are just fine "abusing" this word despite lay people who have political agendas who disagree thus exactly proving my point. Who are you to say they can or cannot - the fact is they do and it is not a violation of language or usage - both arguments you made.
Then the argument was made that you can't assign sex because that is not how the word should be used. I showed otherwise!
No you didn't. You tried to, but failed. You put up the following unlinked, unattributed "definition":
Assign: "To set apart for a particular purpose or place in a particular category" .
It appears to me that you couldn't actually find a clear definition that supported your view so posted the one you think helped. It really didn't. I googled your definition and it appears here:https://www.yourdictionary.com/assign
To set apart for a particular purpose or place in a particular category; designate: assigned the new species to an existing genus.
See the bold section that you didn't include which clarifies the correct use of the word. It talks of assigning something that is already observed and identified, ie. a new species, and placing it in the correct category or genus.
The act of assignation is not the act of observing/identifying, but the act of categorising post identification. So for our purposes and according to your definition, the Dr makes the observation of biological fact/identifies sex and tells us what it is. There is no assignation post that.
It also then breaks down each component of the definition:
set apart or mark for a specific purpose; designate: assign a day for the meeting
To designate or set apart something for some purpose. to assign a day for trial
You didn't show otherwise. You showed a disingenuous obfuscation that everyone ignored because we all knew it to be such. I only point it out now because you genuinely seem to think you proved something and I feel obliged to help you.
If you have a problem with the sources then deal with them.
Seriously, I'm not the one who jumped in and complained about a word usage. I even later said it would not matter to me if you got rid of the word.
Do you think members of the SJW class and members of the LGBTIQA+ cohort wouldn't care if the inappropriate use of the word assign was ended? Look we all know the answer to that, and at the end of the day, that is the entire point.
As you now agree it has been used in an effort of social just activism, not because it is the proper and accepted definition of the word.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you misunderstand and misrepresent my responses then I take the time to correct and call you out on it.
Don't get upset just because you contradict yourself.
