Man quits job over bad woo

[John V]

Special usages by 'tiny minorities' wander their way into common tongue all the time... such as the homosexual use of the word 'gay'

They sure do, and if and when woman doesn't indicate someone with a vagina, you'll have a point. Until then...you don't.

[Violet]

They sure do, and if and when woman doesn't indicate someone with a vagina, you'll have a point. Until then...you don't.

Women doesn't indicate someone with a vagina. Unless every time you think of a woman you're ignoring her entire body and personality in favor of her having a vagina: having a vagina might (at its best) be part of womanhood, but is neither guarantee of such (transmen, intersex), nor required for such (transwomen, women in non-sexual video games).

Manhood/womanhood is characterization, culturally understood, personality-based When 'woman' *does* indicate "someone with a vagina"... that's when I'm going to start worrying for the english language

[John V]

Women doesn't indicate someone with a vagina.

Woman
1. the female human being ( distinguished from man ).
2. an adult female person.
Female
1. a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.

[Violet]

Women doesn't indicate someone with a vagina.

Woman
1. the female human being ( distinguished from man ).
2. an adult female person.

Nothing here says "must have a vagina"

Female
1. a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.

"Normally having a vagina", so... it's obviously not required for being a woman. It's correlated, sure... but clearly not necessary

[John V]

Woman
1. the female human being ( distinguished from man ).
2. an adult female person.

Nothing here says "must have a vagina"

Female
1. a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.

"Normally having a vagina", so... it's obviously not required for being a woman. It's correlated, sure... but clearly not necessary

Sorry sweety, you're overlooking the two X chromosomes factor, which comes before "normally." I've been including chromosomes in some of the posts ya know.

Come to think of it, some men irreverently define a woman as a life support system for a vagina. hock:

Not me.





I think the other parts are nice too.

[Violet]

Sorry sweety, you're overlooking the two X chromosomes factor, which comes before "normally." I've been including chromosomes in some of the posts ya know.

Oh, I noticed that too, but my concern was defining womanhood as 'the possession of vagina'

I have a separate response to the 2 X chromosome = woman factor as well:





These are women.

No doubt, then you might say women have to be human... and then I'll bring out a shit ton of nonhuman characters who are women... then maybe you'll argue that they have to be 'IRL!', then I might respond with human women who've had their ovaries removed, and then we might realize that having access to our reproductive functions is a wash and that we'd still call those women women because they are women, but by definition cannot be women, so what's the point?

Come to think of it, some men irreverently define a woman as a life support system for a vagina. hock:

Not me.

I think the other parts are nice too.

I think I'd have to agree with you... and who needs a life-support system for a vagina when you've got your fleshlight or your hand? ^_^

Without the attached woman... vaginas are really meh. Penises too, if the woman has one. Really, without that cute face and adorable cries: what is sex worth?

... What have I done?

[Tiberius]

Strange, I don't believe I've seen you report one of Minimalist's posts for personal attacks.

It's not strange at all. I'm not a baby. Words from a stranger on the internet don't bother me.

I see, well then guess what? You don't get to complain about Min. How can you complain about theists being unfairly treated, when you've just admitted that you don't report atheists who break the rules?

His most recent remark regarding me: To a nut like him, low-calibre is anything which says his bullshit is wrong.
Again, it doesn't bother me, but I can't help but see that as a personal attack. Easiest way to see them is to search his posts for keyword "drippy." Examples:

There are times I think that Drippy stands by just awaiting the opportunity to say something stupid.

Well then FUCK YOU, Drippy.

Now, perhaps these are all against the rules, but since no one complained, nothing was done (might be interesting though to see how many mods gave him kudos for such). Still, you can see how, reading this stuff every day, I would conclude that such is within the rules.

I won't comment on those quotes here, but if you wish to report them, you may do so and the staff will review them privately. The personal attack rule is our most liberally moderated, often because (a) we mostly believe people have the right to use whatever kind of language they want, and (b) most people have thick skin and aren't bothered by the occasional attack. We generally only intervene when someone reports an instance, a flame war escalates, or when someone makes an attacking remark that is completely unrelated to the thread and was not provoked in any way (i.e. your remark in this thread).

[Violet]

I see, well then guess what? You don't get to complain about Min. How can you complain about theists being unfairly treated, when you've just admitted that you don't report atheists who break the rules?

Wait... so I can't complain unless I'm also reporting something? Someone can be annoyed by something enough to comment/remark upon it without being so 'turned off' by something that they'll report it to the authorities. I'm not allowed to respect people enough to let them do what they do, and still gripe about it to me friends?

I won't comment on those quotes here, but if you wish to report them, you may do so and the staff will review them privately. The personal attack rule is our most liberally moderated, often because (a) we mostly believe people have the right to use whatever kind of language they want, and (b) most people have thick skin and aren't bothered by the occasional attack. We generally only intervene when someone reports an instance, a flame war escalates, or when someone makes an attacking remark that is completely unrelated to the thread and was not provoked in any way (i.e. your remark in this thread).

I don't think he's done anything particularly 'wrong' here unless disagreeing with definitions and people's understanding of things is also 'wrong'.

I'd give you that it was pointless and juvenile, but that's about it

[John V]

Oh, I noticed that too, but my concern was defining womanhood as 'the possession of vagina'

I have a separate response to the 2 X chromosome = woman factor as well:
These are women.

No doubt, then you might say women have to be human...

Already did. Guess you missed that. It's in the definition of woman above - a female human being. We then went to female for XX, vagina, etc.

[Violet]

Already did. Guess you missed that. It's in the definition of woman above - a female human being. We then went to female for XX, vagina, etc.

Didn't miss it, I ignored it for pointlessness. Humanness being woefully irrelevant, and all that.

Anyway, you should be able to follow (in my little timeline) what comes next, if that's not too difficult for you