>
> Two things about this pushed me off a cliff and down the road of reading a bunch of anti-woke traditional liberals/leftists (e.g., Neiman, Haidt, Mounk, et al. ): First, as a person trained in the philosophy of language in the Anglo-American analytic tradition, Wittgenstein informs my view of language. Consequently, the idea of imposing a definition on a word inconsistent with the popular definition is incoherent. Words derive meaning from their use. While this is an active process (words' meanings can evolve over time), insisting that a word means what it plainly doesn't mean for >95% of the people using it makes no sense. The logic of the definition of "woman" is that it stands in for the class "biological human females," and no amount of browbeating or counterargument can change that. While words evolve, we have no examples of changing a word intentionally to mean something close to its opposite. https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/1gwomae/okay_i_was_wrong/
I think trans people should have all human rights, but the rights of one person end where others begin. Thus, I think that Orwellian requests to change the language, as well as places where there are legitimate interests of public policy (e.g., trans people in sport, women’s-only spaces, health care for trans kids), should be open for good faith discussion
Completely agree.
@Hyolobrika Hm, not sure what needs discussing.
If women feel safe in women-only spaces is for them to say, not us.
Sports, well, that's so far outside of my sphere of interest that i have no idea in how far that should be relevant. Something something weight-classes? Is the existing amount of competetiveness healthy? I have no idea.
What would be things you think should be discussed?
@Hyolobrika Ah, the grayscale area. Language changes, but there was an accusation of the group pushing for change being too small.
Hard to say how big the group is, without any studies or surveys to go by.
Ofc, people going ad hominem or trying to force stuff are problematic, but that's hardly specific to this topic.
What is a bit strange to me is "the rights of one person end where others begin" in this context. It seems to go exactly against the point of the general post. It's my right to say what i want, it's others rights to care about understanding what i mean or not, right?
