Definitions are exclusionary
Oh honestly.
The BBC woman to the right of Rosie Duffield asks her: “Do you understand why transgender people and groups of people who have been excluded from that definition have become upset about it?”
For god’s sake! The whole point of definitions is to exclude almost everything! You can’t make definitions “inclusive” without destroying them as definitions. Let’s define definitions as being inclusive of all the meanings, possible and impossible – that will be useful!
Definitions need to be exact and narrow and accurate, in order to do their job. If you start InClooding extras, then what you get is a worthless definition. Women are by definition adult human females, and if you’re adding words like “infant” or “tiger” or “male” to that definition you will be talking useless gibberish.
Not all women are adult human females. Some women are desks. Some women are subatomic particles. Some women are even non-entities! Do you realize the pain and suffering that you’re causing to such women by excluding them from your bigoted definition?
“Do you understand why short people and groups of people that have been excluded from that definition of tall have become upset about it?”
It’s pretty damn silly to demand words that refer specifically to ‘A’ to also refer to ‘not A’.
“I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with trans people at all”
And an adverb fetish it seems…
“Do you understand why white people and groups of people who have been excluded from that definition of “black people” have become upset about it?”
“Do you understand why rich people and groups of people who have been excluded from that definition of “poor people” have become upset about it?”
“Do you understand why able-bodied people and groups of people who have been excluded from that definition of “disabled people” have become upset about it?”
Heh, twiliter, I noticed that too and was going to complain about the need to say it 16 different ways to avoid punishment, but if you play the clip it seems less absurd. Just a normal conversational thing of using emphasis to get a point across.
Definitions are, by definition, finite. A fine thing, for things which finish. But transness is infinite, sans fin, and so definitions, by definition, impose a fine line on things that have no final finish. The infinite cannot be definite.
Finis
applause
Bravo, WaM.
I have noticed that there are already too many words with multiple meanings, some of them confusing other people when you speak. In my classes, for instance, I use hotspot three different ways for different branches of science, and my students have to take responsibility for recognizing which way I am using it today.
I love the complexities of language, but we do all need to be able to communicate at some level, and if we define woman as “anyone of any sex that says they are”, it’s not very easy to communicate. We can’t talk about women’s issues, because they are everyone’s issues, and therefore not debatable. Etc.
I am an able-bodied disabled person. When I see you try to define “disabled” in a way that excludes me, that’s TRIGERRING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now I need to pull the trigger and kill myself!!!!!!
I respect you for that GW, and even though I am not affected, that means that you are free to park in spots reserved for the disabled. Anything less would be disrepectful towards your declaration.
It would be LITERAL VIOLENCE! Why should latsot have that great parking space just because he’s in a wheelchair? I swear, the cis-disabled are just SO EXCLUSIVE.
Illegally parking in a disabled space. Good luck with that in traffic court. :P