Comment by dangus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dangus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You're preaching at me about neutral sources while throwing conservative AM talk radio and Rupert Murdoch newspaper links my way. That's kind of ironic and hypocritical.

Dictionary definitions are supposed to change over time as all languages change over time. All dictionaries modify their definitions because there's no such thing as a static language.

Words are also allowed to have more than one definition. "Run" can mean a whole host of different things. [1]

This means it's completely reasonable for the definition of "female" (one example from your links) to expand and change as people change their level of acceptance of transgender people and therefore how they use words referring to gender.

There's no law that says the word "female" must only refer to biological sex, just like the word "run" has been given a new definition to mean "execute a program" after the invention of computers. But you won't complain about that change because it's got nothing to do with all the hurting of minorities that is the foundation of contemporary conservative ideology.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/run

>You're preaching at me about neutral sources while throwing conservative AM talk radio and Rupert Murdoch newspaper links my way. That's kind of ironic and hypocritical. I just did a quick Google to find the links, but is there anything specific in either of them that was incorrect?

I’m aware of how definitions work and change, but these were changed for political reasons, not because society writ large changed. I’m also intimately familiar with the multiple definitions of “run” as I’ve had to write them all by hand, several times, during detention in my secondary school years. Perhaps you should read the definition for caution, because it’s certainly not preaching.

Society actually did change on LGBT acceptance, on a quantitative level.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

We’re not talking about LGB, just the T. Aside from being OK with them serving in the military, other trans issues are either split down the middle or in the Disapprove category. Not sure why “gender identity” is lumped in with the other sexual orientations except for the purpose of co-opting.

Not great for actual women though is it, being relegated to a sub-category of their own sex class.

It's just another example of enforced male dominance, same as ever.

Men who want to be women need to back off and understand that they are not actually women, and therefore need to stop colonizing women's language, women's rights, women's spaces.

The trans rights movement is the men's rights movement in a crap wig and a badly fitting dress.

It’s interesting how straight men only fear trans women.

Transphobes like you seem to forget that trans men exist. There’s no controversy about trans men ruining sports or trans men in drag shows or anything like that.

The hate toward trans women is rooted in misogyny and homophobia. You and others like you are afraid you might be attracted to someone who has male sex organs. As soon as “a man becomes a woman,” to the misogynists like you they’re now just like all the other subservient women that you feel like you’re allowed to oppress. That’s really the crux of the issue.

Trans women aren’t doing anything to harm women. We shouldn’t forget that men do all kinds of shit to harm women like groping, assaulting, trafficking, and legislating.

You say that “men presenting to be women” need to “back off.” Back off of what exactly? Existing? Trans women aren’t a threat to women or an any group in particular, they’re just people living their lives minding their own business.

Maybe men trying to fight against equality and personal freedom should be the ones to back off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com