"Persons with vulvas"

[renard_ruse]

Sorry you fucking language distorting piece of shit writer but its women, not generic "persons," who have vulvas.

Yes its a "gender specific" organ whether "you like it or not" you fucking moron. You ideological fantasy world doesn't replace science, common knowledge, and basic reality.

 

[pecksniff]

Who exactly is proposing replacing "women" with "people with vulvas"?

 

[pecksniff]

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/6/6a/stephen_and_me.png

Hey, let go! We were all thinking it! Someone had to speak truth to power!

 

[YDB95]

Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears. Occasionally they don't match, and people for whom they don't match deserve to be seen as who they really are.

 

[Cubantripod]

Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears. Occasionally they don't match, and people for whom they don't match deserve to be seen as who they really are.

That's fine. That's doesn't mean you ignore the other 99% of the members of that sex.

 

[Lazaran]

Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears. Occasionally they don't match, and people for whom they don't match deserve to be seen as who they really are.

"Sex" isn't always clearly defined between the legs at birth either.

That ^ fact should at least give pause to the Deplorables crusade against people who aren't "normal".

 

[Lazaran]

.
The CUbaNTripod thinks the "other 99%" have been ignored.

JFC

SAD!!!

 

[YDB95]

That's fine. That's doesn't mean you ignore the other 99% of the members of that sex.

Not all women have vulvas; not everyone who has a vulva is a woman. The term "women" does not encompass all persons with vulvas (and it includes some who don't have one); "persons with vulvas" does. (Although I thought the plural was actually "vulvae", but that's beside the point.) Using a fully inclusive (and appropriately exclusive) term does not "ignore" the vast majority of people who fit in both groups).

"Sex" isn't always clearly defined between the legs at birth either.

That ^ fact should at least give pause to the Deplorables crusade against people who aren't "normal".

No fact ever gives the deplorables pause when they're wrapped up in their hatred of anyone who doesn't fit in their worldview.

 

[pecksniff]

"Sex" isn't always clearly defined between the legs at birth either.

Hermaphroditism is a completely different topic.

 

[Cubantripod]

Not all women have vulvas; not everyone who has a vulva is a woman. The term "women" does not encompass all persons with vulvas (and it includes some who don't have one); "persons with vulvas" does. (Although I thought the plural was actually "vulvae", but that's beside the point.) Using a fully inclusive (and appropriately exclusive) term does not "ignore" the vast majority of people who fit in both groups).

Which is why I said the other 99%. It's not something that the 99% think about because their sex matches their gender. You're removing their identity for the sake of the other 1%. They're women and want to be referred to as women.

No fact ever gives the deplorables pause when they're wrapped up in their hatred of anyone who doesn't fit in their worldview.

When you develop a brainstem capable of thinking in a way that isn't an either/or fallacy, you can join the grown up conversation. Until then, keep practicing at tying your shoes.

 

[YDB95]

Which is why I said the other 99%. It's not something that the 99% think about because their sex matches their gender. You're removing their identity for the sake of the other 1%. They're women and want to be referred to as women.

You're the one removing the identity of people who have a vulva but aren't women, or vice versa. Including them does not erase women who are biologically female (and I'm betting you have no basis for that 99% beyond your own assumptions).

 

[pecksniff]

Which is why I said the other 99%. It's not something that the 99% think about because their sex matches their gender. You're removing their identity for the sake of the other 1%. They're women and want to be referred to as women.

And nobody is talking about referring to them as "persons with vulvas."

Though that is an intriguing concept . . . if, say, public restrooms were so labeled . . . and instead of the standard round-headed figures . . .

 

[YDB95]

Though that is an intriguing concept . . . if, say, public restrooms were so labeled . . . and instead of the standard round-headed figures . . .

That would amount to forcing men with vulvas and women with penises to use the wrong restroom. No one wants that.

 

[Cubantripod]

You're the one removing the identity of people who have a vulva but aren't women, or vice versa. Including them does not erase women who are biologically female (and I'm betting you have no basis for that 99% beyond your own assumptions).

Globally, 1% of adults currently describe themselves as transgender, non-binary, non-conforming,
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/lgbt-gender-identity-ipsos-2021-survey/

Start calling random women "persons with vulvas" and get back to me when you're tired of getting slapped. You people cannot be this clueless.

On second though...You all believe that's it's either all or nothing. Calling the other 99% women doesn't take away the identity of those that are gender nonconforming.

 

[Lazaran]

.
The CUbaNTripod just can't stop the stupid from escapimg the confines of his tiny cranium.

No one is telling women they can't be referred to as women. In certain situations, for the sake of clarity and inclusion, new terminology is sometimes used.

Deplorables have a problem with acknowledging and affording dignity to those in minority / marginalized demographics.

Same as it ever was.

SAD!!!

 

[pecksniff]

Globally, 1% of adults currently describe themselves as transgender, non-binary, non-conforming,
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/lgbt-gender-identity-ipsos-2021-survey/

1% of the global population is a lot of people.

I'm really surprised it's that many.

 

[YDB95]

On second though...You all believe that's it's either all or nothing. Calling the other 99% women doesn't take away the identity of those that are gender nonconforming.

No one is saying it does. The point is, "women" and "persons with vulvas" are two different groups. They're two groups with an extremely high share of people who belong to both groups, but they are still two different groups. There are times when it's appropriate to distinguish between the two. Everyday on-the-street conversation is not one of those times, as you seem to be implying above, and no one else suggested it was.

The fact is, though, if you pass a dozen women you don't know on the street, you really have no way of knowing every last one of them has a vulva. (It's also none of your business, but that's beside the point.)

 

[Cubantripod]

.
The CUbaNTripod just can't stop the stupid from escapimg the confines of his tiny cranium.

No one is telling women they can't be referred to as women. In certain situations, for the sake of clarity and inclusion, new terminology is sometimes used.

Deplorables have a problem with acknowledging and affording dignity to those in minority / marginalized demographics.

Same as it ever was.

SAD!!!

Your underdeveloped prefrontal lobe doesn't let you understand that many biological women will get angry at you for referring to them as person's with vulvas. They are women, proud of it and expect you to refer to them as women. If you're going to worry about pronouns, it got both ways.

 

[Cubantripod]

1% of the global population is a lot of people.

I'm really surprised it's that many.

Hence why I said the other 99% which is 99 times as many.

 

[mark_j]

No one is saying it does. The point is, "women" and "persons with vulvas" are two different groups. They're two groups with an extremely high share of people who belong to both groups, but they are still two different groups. There are times when it's appropriate to distinguish between the two. Everyday on-the-street conversation is not one of those times, as you seem to be implying above, and no one else suggested it was.

The fact is, though, if you pass a dozen women you don't know on the street, you really have no way of knowing every last one of them has a vulva. (It's also none of your business, but that's beside the point.)

Which brings up the question;

Why should I care?

Most of the time when interacting with people, I don't care or want to know anything other than your name. Nor do I need to 'recognize' nor 'acknowledge' a damn thing about your 'identity'.

 

[Lazaran]

.
The CUbaNTripod supports my point and doesn't even realize it.

Dumb CUbaNTripod.

 

[Cubantripod]

.
The CUbaNTripod supports my point and doesn't even realize it.

Dumb CUbaNTripod.

You don't know what point you're making. You get your opinions from the Young Turks and then you act as if you're capable of independent, rational thought

PATHETIC.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

That's fine. That's doesn't mean you ignore the other 99% of the members of that sex.

But...but...ALL LIVES MATTER

 

[Lazaran]

But...but...ALL LIVES MATTER

Do you really think The CUbaNTripod will understand the point of your comment???

Magic 8-Ball says- Not Likely.

 

[pecksniff]

I notice that rr never seems to come back to the threads he starts.