You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Since this thread has a a language vibe how can one become woke? It’s a past tense. Surely people are waking up or awake. This shit annoys me and I have no idea why! I’m guessing it originated in America because language massacring ****s.
You are not gonna make an argument for faith are you?
I was thinking more something like quantum physics, round Earth or the existence of kangaroos. I didn't list an example because I couldn't really think of a good one that wouldn't immediately become a target to be pulled apart. If you thought I was going to argue in favour of faith then you haven't read many of my posts over the years.
This is the basics of the scientific method. Ordered observations of the evidence.
That's not how the scientific method works, you don't get biologists calling out astronomers, or plasterers calling out microbiologists.
It is simply not possible to understand everything on this planet or beyond. And that's OK. So the things we don't understand, we defer to experts in their fields rather than decrying everything they're telling us because we haven't seen it.
Since this thread has a a language vibe how can one become woke? It’s a past tense.
Is it not possible to become awakened?
TINAS – nothing about that article suggest that they were “born in the wrong body” they are born in the body they are born in end of story. They do show a difference from the norm. Is a downs syndrome person born in the wrong body?
Do you apply that logic by going upto everyone with a disability and claiming they're faking it because you can't perceive it first hand?
Is it not possible to become awakened?
No, that’s a past participle. You can be awakened but you can’t become awakened, that would be awake. I was awakened by the sound of pronouns everywhere! I am now awake. So right now nobody is woke they are awake. Bastard stupid word. Up there with fake news, just sounds like a ****ing idiot saying it. Like one of those ****ers who says myself instead of me.
You can’t be woke right now, it’s happened in the past. You were woke but not anymore!
Now you’re awake after having an awakening.
See! Look what it’s doing to me 😂
Times change
Some people struggle to adapt to it, but language, culture & it seems pronouns are dynamic
Otherwise we'd all be addressing each other as
thisisnotaspoon Esquire. (OK technically that's a postnoun)
Or Goodwife Cougar....
Pronouns aren't just about trans people, plenty of people consider themselves non-binary, I think as much as anything this is a push back against gender norms young'uns are bombarded with:
The majority of us will never look like the contestants on Love Island, I can't imagine what it's like to be a teen growing up in the Instagram world bombarded by impossibly sculpted influencers & porn stars they see 24/7 on their phones & computers
No wonder the 'youth' don't want to conform to those impossible idealised gender stereotypes.
The anti-trans debate is something else, but the 2 things are conflated in the 'pronoun wars'
And so much of the anti-trans movement has echoes of 70s homophobia- it took many people a long time to accept that people could be gay, some people have never accepted it.
Since this thread has a a language vibe how can one become woke? It’s a past tense.
Because has at least three different meanings in different variants of English:
- African American Vernacular English, where it means awakened to the real state of things in the polity
- "standard" American English, where it has come to mean a predeliction to self-evidently ludicrous, fashionable political beliefs
- many other varients of English where it simply is a past participle of wake
"stay woke"...or maybe "stay fishy"
You can be awakened but you can’t become awakened
Is it not possible to become awakened to something?
isn’t woke in that meaning an adjective or a noun rather than a verb? a new word with a meaning separate from the past tense of wake.
what annoys me about it is that it implies that the woke were ignorant of the plight of others before their awakening.
what i love about it is that it how much the concept it defines upsets people.
I woke up 30 mins ago and will do the same in the morning.
I know that in some Polynesian societies they have a third gender, callad fafana or something similar, (theres a great film about a trans footballer from American Samoa calld "Last Goal Wins")
With the pronoun thing, if the English language could accomadate a phrase that fitted in more easily, both grammatically and phoneticaly then I'm not so sure it would be so contentious.
It's hard to impose language on people, language develops of its' own accord, people tend to adopt words because they fit or flow easily, we'll either get used to the 'they' thing or we'll come up with something else that sounds better.
We'll get there in the end....
I am called a terf because I have yet to see evidence that you can be “born in the wrong body”.
Hmm. People all around you are trying to explain how they feel about themselves, and you are denying their feelings and experiences. You might want to have a think about how important your sense of scientific rectitude actually is in this context. As users of human languages, we try to assemble words that describe how we feel. This is pretty difficult, generally, and to be really good at it requires uncommon mastery. So we tend to use simple phrases to express concepts that are complex and personal. So I don't think it's worth trying to reduce the phrase 'born in the wrong body' to its most basic interpretation.
Now, I'm sure you know this. Clearly we employ figurative speech and metaphor every day. I think that you just don't like this idea. Ok, fine; but it's not about you. It's about the people who suffer from this issue. They feel that there is a problem with the way society views them.
I'm a sciency person, but there is really no value in trying to reduce people's ideas about themselves, their personality and their view of themselves to cellular biology. I absolutely believe that these things come from the brain ultimately, but that's something we still know **** all about, really.
This is the basics of the scientific method. Ordered observations of the evidence.
Yes, and the fact there are millions of people all over the world talking about this issue is pretty good evidence of a phenomenon of some kind. I don't see anything anti-scientific going on here - except by the people who are trying to deny the the concept of being trans.
I was thinking more something like quantum physics, round Earth or the existence of kangaroos. I didn’t list an example because I couldn’t really think of a good one that wouldn’t immediately become a target to be pulled apart.
What you're thinking of is commonly referred to as the black swan phenomenon.
Yes, and the fact there are millions of people all over the world talking about this issue is pretty good evidence of a phenomenon of some kind. I don’t see anything anti-scientific going on here – except by the people who are trying to deny the the concept of being trans.
Billions of people talk about god. Is that evidence of the existence of god?
I'm all for your interpretation molgrips, However the problem is if you want to take science out ofd it, then why is science being used to attempt to convert these people from one sex to another? And others will try and use science to say you can change someone's sex.
Gender is a sociological construct, normally based on bio sex.
People feel they don't fit in to that socio norm, I agree with them if that's what they feel, and I don't care what they do and how they behave, Why do we need to be thought policed about the bio sex part? You are saying that the science doesn't matter, so fine, don't try and convince me that it does.
plenty of people consider themselves non-binary
I do and so does my wife. Nearing our 60s we don't feel particularly like either gender or see the point of gender so we would say we are non-binary in that sense.
isn’t woke in that meaning an adjective or a noun rather than a verb? a new word with a meaning separate from the past tense of wake.
what annoys me about it is that it implies that the woke were ignorant of the plight of others before their awakening.
what i love about it is that it how much the concept it defines upsets people.
I think this is where I’m coming from. It’s a fantastic thing. I think it just needs a better word for it. For some reason it just sounds a bit dumb to me. Funny when right wing nutters whinge about it yet doesn’t do the issues at the heart of it justice. Just my opinion of course. Like incorrect use of myself it just makes people using it come across as a bit dense to me.
I can’t help wondering OP, given all the comments here, why you have started a thread in the bike forum with the words “Hi Guys” …
Deliberate trolling or just thoughtless?
I think it just needs a better word for it. For some reason it just sounds a bit dumb to me...it just makes people using it come across as a bit dense to me.
There are lots of Englishes in the world. AAVE is not (I assume) your English, and the use of woke is grammatically regular there.
Woke in Standard American English (i.e. as it has been co-opted by the right) is used precisely because it is non-grammatical and jarring - it's supposed to suggest the thinking behind it is dissonant and perverse (and African-American).
Maybe neither of these usages is designed to impress you?
Edit: mildly amusing video of anti-woke warrior failing to define what "woke" means halfway down this article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/16/woke-definition-conservatives-us
https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/stay-woke-wokeness-history-origin-evolution-controversy
The point I am trying to make is that there is no good reason not to respect peoples pro-noun requirements, it is basically easy, but if people muck it up or don’t want to, there is no good reason to vilify them either.
It’s a little bit like being in a room full of professors. If you call them all prof nobody will give you a prize. If you call them all Dr, someone may correct you but nobody will really care, but if you call the men Prof and the women Dr or Mrs you can expect to piss people off. If someone corrects you and you continue to do it then you are the problem. If that’s accidental, recognise you have an inherent bias, appologise and try harder. If you do it intentionally, either to make a point or cause hurt, then vilify away. Inevitably someone will try to turn that argument around to why anyone should be called prof, and some sort of class or status war. Those people may have a perfectly valid but totally irrelevant argument - if sometimes you use a title or pronoun, then try to use the right one. If someone asks you to use something different learn from it rather than joining a culture war. If someone gets your name or title wrong, if you think they did it intentionally making a drama out of it is probably what they wanted.
If sometimes you use a title or pronoun, then try to use the right one.
Well, quite. Someone at work is 6'2", strongly built and has a five o'clock shadow. They prefer gender neutral pronouns. I don't understand why but it's their choice and all it requires of me is a little bit of thought.
Those people may have a perfectly valid but totally irrelevant argument – if sometimes you use a title or pronoun, then try to use the right one. If someone asks you to use something different learn from it rather than joining a culture war.
I generally agree with you, but I draw the line at titles that are designed to put others in an inferior position or are just spooky. I always call my GP "doctor" because they earned it, but I'm not calling anyone "your highness" or "Father". Admittedly this has never, ever arisen in real life for me...
They prefer gender neutral pronouns. I don’t understand why but it’s their choice and all it requires of me is a little bit of thought.
Totally agree, you should respect his choice of pronoun or title. However why not tell him you in turn wish to be known as "the almighty one".
Silly yes, attention seeking yes, but he started it. It should cut both ways.
I work in an office with a large % of millennials and younger. I have encountered none of the things your on about.
Ive spent the last 15 years working in a research institute thats been part of large universities
We have quite a few students in the lab too
I also have encountered none of this (we had one non-binary person in my las lab, they were pretty chill about the pronoun thing)
Totally agree, you should respect his choice of pronoun or title. However why not tell him you in turn wish to be known as “the almighty one”.
It's "they", not "him".
but if people muck it up there is no good reason to vilify them either.
I agree
but if people don’t want to, there is no good reason to vilify them either.
I disagree
Maybe not vilify, but the lack of decency in respecting someone's choices makes me sad.
However why not tell him you in turn wish to be known as “the almighty one”.
If you really want to, but to me comes in the same category as people who insist that 'all lives matter'. They know why someone's pronouns are important to them really and they're just IMHO being a bit of a dick about it by insisting they identify as a unicorn or want to be known as Almighty One.
Totally agree, you should respect his choice of pronoun or title. However why not tell him you in turn wish to be known as “the almighty one”.
It’s “they”, not “him”.
It's "them" not "they".
With the pronoun thing, if the English language could accomadate a phrase that fitted in more easily, both grammatically and phoneticaly then I’m not so sure it would be so contentious.
We already have perfectly serviceable words. The only reason it's "contentious" is because some people want to use language as an excuse to punch down on a minority.
I’m all for your interpretation molgrips, However the problem is if you want to take science out ofd it,
No, the problem is that you only want to listen to the "science" which aligns with your opinion.
Maybe neither of these usages is designed to impress you?
I’m neither impressed or unimpressed. I just think there should be a better word for it tbh. I do love when impotent angry folk extend it though. Wokerati being a favourite.
No, the problem is that you only want to listen to the “science” which aligns with your opinion.
So the science matters to you, but not to molgrips, which is it?
This is just a constant moving of the goalposts to align with your opinion. This is projection on your part,
There is no scientific proof that you can change bio sex, or that you are born in the wrong body. None.
As I said I have no objection to the way people dress, present themselves, have sex whatever.
But you cannot force me to accept a concept I know to false.
What has "Ladies & Gentlemen, Boys and Girls - thank you for coming and welcome to the annual school prize giving ceremony" been replaced with?
"Hello"?
But you cannot force me to accept a concept I know to false.
We cannot force you to accept a concept you believe to be false.
... also,
For all your crying about science, no scientist worth their salt would ever be bold enough to proclaim that they know anything absolutely. There is a reason that science uses the word "theory." Even if you weren't flat out wrong, something might come along tomorrow which presents new evidence.
As Dara O'Briain once said, "Science doesn't know everything. But science knows that it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop."
been replaced with?
“Welcome everybody, and thanks for coming…”
For all your crying about science, no scientist worth their salt would ever be bold enough to proclaim that they know anything absolutely. There is a reason that science uses the word “theory.” Even if you weren’t flat out wrong, something might come along tomorrow which presents new evidence.
The fact that you would dare to say this means you have not bothered to comprehend a single thing I have written, it show either ridiculous bias for your concept or intellectual dishonesty.
EG
I am called a terf because I have yet to see evidence that you can be “born in the wrong body”.
and
There is no evidence of a biological sex change, you would have to re-write their DNA. every single cell. (I’m not saying it might not be possible in the future)
You are letting your bias and rhetoric get in the way of your argument and discussion.
It’s interesting that some people can be willing to hide behind DNA in a way others would hide behind religious doctrine to justify their own personal mistrust and lack of acceptance towards people they can’t empathise with. Just be kind and try.
1. I work with teenagers including a small minority of students who prefer different pronouns to those that they had originally. You know what, this 50 year old manages it just fine. Yes - I had to rewire some of my ingrained unthinking assumptions and speech patterns and yes I made the odd mistake along the way. But it's all good.
2. Kids in the broader community - they handle it just fine. It's totally a non issue.
3. I attended an interesting talk last year - discussing the fact that this might be an interim phase. Basically when we are born and get to an age when we understand ourselves a bit we enter a world full of stereotypes. Our physical and chemical makeup comes with some very significant conscious and unconscious expectations about our future lives - how we might want to behave, who it might be considered conventional to be attracted to, basically where will be placed in the world. The narrative was that as these conventions, expectations and blunt stereotypes are eroded (and the unspoken subtext here was eroded probably equalled the old ****ers in the room shuffled off this mortal coil) the concept of gender beyond the biological will melt away and with that many of the triggers for gender dysphoria. I think that's a world I could happily live in.
But you cannot force me to accept a concept I know to false.
Can you provide the evidence it’s false, I mean you must have scientific proof.
@convert - Points 1 and 2, bang on, and 3, I have seen a ted talk like video on that same topic. Was very informative.
@drac Can you provide the evidence it’s false, I mean you must have scientific proof.
You cannot prove a negative. Do I need to quote Russell?
(I know you know this, I think you are just pissing about?)
Now I can’t decide if you deliberately being obtuse, thick or trolling.
Ah! Now you’ve used Wikipedia as your source.
The fact that you would dare to say this means you have not bothered to comprehend a single thing I have written, it show either ridiculous bias for your concept or intellectual dishonesty.
Oh, I understand alright.
Let me put this to you then: What would it take to change your mind?
Oh, I understand alright.
So this doesn't sound like you have made your mind up in advance at all.
Ah! Now you’ve used Wikipedia as your source.
Not source, as a reference, it is easier than finding out your address and sending a google maps link to your local library. If think you can oppose the last 500 years of thought by proving a negative, go ahead. I'm not going to bother entering into a discussion about it. You are going up against Sagan, Russell, and everything before.
Oh dear me.
Go on then, prove a negative.
If you’re using Russell at least use him in full context. His theory actually goes against your beliefs that it’s not possible. His theory is if we’d been historically told something then we don’t change our minds.
Unicorns don’t exist. No one has ever seen one, there is no physical evidence of them existing. There you go.
Unicorns don’t exist. No one has ever seen one, there is no physical evidence of them existing. There you go.
TBF that doesn't actually prove anything. But neither does it need to, "Unicorns don't exist" is the null hypothesis and the onus is to prove that unicorns do exist. That's my understanding anyway...
TBF that doesn’t actually prove anything. But neither does it need to, “Unicorns don’t exist” is the null hypothesis and the onus is to prove that unicorns do exist. That’s my understanding anyway…
Exactly.
Not at all. They don’t exist and there is no evidence they ever have. Even if there’s many stories telling us they do and did, they simply don’t.
Not at all. They don’t exist and there is no evidence they ever have. Even if there’s many stories telling us they do and did, they simply don’t.
Exactly, to prove a negative, people will ask you to prove unicorns do not exist, there is no evidence that they do not exist (because there is no evidence full stop, you cant show evidence of the non-unicorn).
You have not proven a negative, you have just shown that there is no evidence for the positive (yet).
The same as there is no evidence that you can be born in the wrong body (yet).
You asked
Can you provide the evidence it’s false, I mean you must have scientific proof.
The answer is no, because there is no evidence that it is true. Same as unicorns.
The answer is no, because there is no evidence that it is true. Same as unicorns.
Based on old beliefs of if you have vag you’re a girl and if you have a willy you’re a boy. Then there’s the outdated X and Y gene theory too. Like Russell says you’re basing it on what you’ve always been told and believed. You have evidence that you’re right.
No, that is your assumption about what I think is the state of knowledge.
Also you are unclear about if you refer to bio sex or "born in the wrong body", you had answered to my statement about born in the wrong body but now it seems you are rereferring to bio sex.
there is no evidence that you can be born in the wrong body.
define evidence?
Is my son's absolute, deeprooted unhappiness with his AFAB identity, and his slow but daily improvement as the treatments he is now on to masculinise his body start to have an effect - not evidence of some sort? If not then what are we seeing, how do you characterise what is happening?
Yeah definitely trolling.
Is my son’s absolute, deeprooted unhappiness with his AFAB identity, and his slow but daily improvement as the treatments he is now on to masculinise his body start to have an effect – not evidence of some sort? If not then what are we seeing, how do you characterise what is happening?
You seem to think that your sons existence and experience are being denied.
I don't deny it at all.
Where's the OP gone? I want to hear more stories about folk changing into their little barista outfits and playing rock/paper/scissors.
Is disappoint.
Getting away from the delightful pedantry of a language discussion for a minute:
I am called a terf because I have yet to see evidence that you can be “born in the wrong body”.
Have you addressed Guevedoces? Surely that must come under the definition of being born in the wrong body?
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34290981
Of course, arguably, most were born in the right body as the majority live out their lives as men but some choose to 'become' women.
This is just one example of just how complicated biology can be and how little we still understand of it.
I know you are going to come up with an explanation of how this doesn't meet your criteria for 'evidence' but I am interested in hearing just how you are going to justify disregarding it.
The problem with this issue is that we can't discuss it without people making accusations of hate or prejudice etc. when in fact many, me included are very interested in the phenomena of gender dysphoria and want to understand it as much as anyone.
Answer this then, what does born in the wrong body mean? Can you define it?
So this doesn’t sound like you have made your mind up in advance at all.
Well done in picking up on the trivial bit of that post and completely ignoring the actual point. Here it is again:
Let me put this to you then: What would it take to change your mind?
men but some choose to ‘become’ women.
Can they be both or neither? Or some other definition? Do we need to define them at all?
Answer this then, what does born in the wrong body mean? Can you define it?
It's a medical condition whereby the body doesn't produce the hormones the brain requires in order to function normally leading to life-threatening symptoms such as depression, dissociation, etc. This can cause severe social problems and sometimes ends with suicide.
I can't describe what it must feel like because I have absolutely no idea. However, just because I have no idea what someone else feels doesn't mean I disregard those feelings.
Are unicorns the new black swans?
Can they be both or neither? Or some other definition? Do we need to define them at all?
I have no idea what you are talking about now.
Do Guevedoces fit your definition of being born in the wrong body or not. If not, why not?
Two positives don’t make a negative?
2 wrongs don't make a right.
But 3 lefts do.
Are unicorns the new black swans?
No, they both are rather well defined, and those definitions are rather different.
Answer this then, what does born in the wrong body mean? Can you define it?
It’s a medical condition whereby the body doesn’t produce the hormones the brain requires in order to function normally leading to life-threatening symptoms such as depression, dissociation, etc. This can cause severe social problems and sometimes ends with suicide.
Do all people who have whatever hormonal condition you're referring to tend to gender dysphoria and depression etc? Or just some? Do all people who tend to gender dysphoria have whatever hormonal condition? Or just some? Answer: just some. So can we take the "medical condition" bit out of it? It might be some people will benefit from medical treatment for dysphoria and fair enough, but many others can happily self identify and be accepted without this. What works best - ie makes people happier with their lives - can be investigated empirically and that's what matters, not endocrine whatever.
Answer this then, what does born in the wrong body mean? Can you define it?
Not easily - no; in fact in some ways as a phrase when unpicked it's actually unhelpful. Because he only has one body and so how can it be the wrong one? In fact, 'rejection' of that body (which does happen, believe me) leads to further psychological damage. But the reality - that the identity assigned to the external characteristics of that body (breasts, genitalia, periods, etc.) do not match the identity of the whole spiritual being - all of us are far more than our external / physical presence. That's very real.
So it's a phrase that is kind of shorthand for the whole manifestations of gender dysphoria in all its glory rather than a precise medical definition. And one that is increasingly falling out of favour in the TG community.
So can we take the “medical condition” bit out of it?
Gender dysphoria is a medical condition.
Being born in the wrong body isn't. However, it's a phrase commonly used by people with gender dysphoria to describe their condition.
If there is some other definition you want to use for 'being born in the wrong body' then go ahead but for us to discuss it you'll have to define exactly what you mean by it.
Cougar
Full Member
That’s just roundaboutery.
👏👏👏
Not easily – no; in fact in some ways as a phrase when unpicked it’s actually unhelpful. Because he only has one body and so how can it be the wrong one? In fact, ‘rejection’ of that body (which does happen, believe me) leads to further psychological damage. But the reality – that the identity assigned to the external characteristics of that body (breasts, genitalia, periods, etc.) do not match the identity of the whole spiritual being – all of us are far more than our external / physical presence. That’s very real.
So it’s a phrase that is kind of shorthand for the whole manifestations of gender dysphoria in all its glory rather than a precise medical definition. And one that is increasingly falling out of favour in the TG community.
Ok this makes the most sense, I think I 100% agree with this.. And is what I have wanted to drag out since the beginning.
Hence my original statement, one cannot be born in the wrong body, feels right, because, the statement actually has no meaning. Hence no evidence.
But - one can reject the idea of a gendered body and appearance etc. There is loads of evidence for this i.e. all the people who have gender dysphoria and other associated conditions. Do we all agree about that?
@brucewee - I can't define it, I don't think it is definable, hence why I have been rejecting it all along.
t might be some people will benefit from medical treatment for dysphoria and fair enough, but many others can happily self identify and be accepted without this. What works best – ie makes people happier with their lives – can be investigated empirically and that’s what matters, not endocrine whatever.
Johnx agree also.
Gender dysphoria is a medical condition
It's a "term to describe a sense of unease"
It’s a “term to describe a sense of unease”
It has diagnosis criteria. It has medical treatment. Left untreated it can lead to people killing themselves so I'm comfortable calling it a medical condition.
Up until 2013 it was called gender identity disorder but that was changed because of the stigma attached to the word disorder.
It seems that by trying to reduce the stigma that has made it a non-disease in your eyes. Trans people just can't catch a break, can they?
Anyway, I don't think anyone wanted 'being born in the wrong body' to be rigidly classed and defined. It's just a way for people suffering from gender dysphoria to try to describe what it feels like.
However, since it's being weaponised by transphobes I can see why many transgender people are no longer using it.
However, since it’s being weaponised by transphobes I can see why many transgender people are no longer using it.
It has been weaponised by everyone, hence why I want it to be sorted out. It has always had a nonsense value and I don't think it serves the people who experience gender dysphoria.
It has been weaponised by everyone,
No, it started as a way for people with gender dysphoria to explain the condition in a way that non-sufferers could relate to.
Then the demands came to 'define' it rather than just try to understand it. From there it was used as a way to try to discredit gender dysphoria in general.
If you can explain how both sides weaponised the term I'd be interested in hearing how, exactly.
It seems impossible to talk about anything on here without you lot getting irritated.
You just seem to think I am "anti trans" or even a "transphobe" just because I am interested in understanding it.