I wonder if you can legally change genders with this. If you’re a woman who’s bigger, stronger, and faster than the average male in Nebraska, then you satisfy this biological condition set forth in law.
They're doing it because they can't stand it when this logic doesn't apply. They hate trans people, intersex people, and women who are stronger than them.
But what does that mean, what's the point of it? Both my daughters are above average height, probably about the height of the average man. Does that tell us anything useful?
It tells us that your daughters will be better suited to get things off of the top shelf than others will be. But more likely to be uncomfortable when flying.
You could just as easily say, a woman, on average, has boobies and a man, on average, has a ding dong. It would sound exactly as intelligent.
Here’s a fun fact, taking only biological men at birth in to account, the average penis per capita is less than 1. Same for women, and ovum would be less than 2 per person by quite a bit more.
So on average a man has between 0 and 1 penises. And a woman in average between 0 and 2 ovum.
And even THAT would be more useful of a definition than the one Jim fucking Pillin just signed. But it didn’t exclude anyone he doesn’t like, and there’s no legal reason to have that definition anyway. It’s just brownie points for his idiotic constituency
I agree with what you say and that any and all definitions are somewhat incomplete …but still.
Even though, for example, you could find any degrees between a chair and a table ; you could create something quite exactly in between a chair and a table, well, despite this, it is still useful to define what’s a chair and what’s a table.
Now, about “Jim fucking Pillin” well, I cant say anything ; I’m disconnected of the topic.
P.S. :
based on my previous comment :To : @Wogi average : here it means the average man versus the average woman. I know everyone here gets offended and rightfully so. But I find it so stupid because they are not offended for the right reason. (to @HeartyBeast as well) By the way ; if you had to define woman and man, what would you say ?
Sure and if you wanted to have a strictly philosophical debate on the nature of definition, I’m here for that.
That’s not what this is. This is the governor of my home state firing off on a group of people he doesn’t like, and nothing more. Any debate about exactly how he defined it is pointless outside of that context.
There’s no legal reason to define the genders, no ongoing court drama in Nebraska that hinges on this definition, nothing legally will ever be decided because of it. It’s just one idiot shouting out to a bunch of other idiots that he doesn’t like it when people who were born with one set of genitals want to have a different set of genitals.
What this will accomplish is added brain drain, an issue Nebraska sorely needs a remedy to, it will cost millions in court cases that will now be filed against the state and the governor, and it will cost women’s centers in Nebraska Federal money. All while doing absolutely nothing worthwhile for the state of Nebraska.
It’s Jim Pillen saying he wants a fight with a minority group. And it’s an idiotic call to arms at that.
Now this is the point and this is what should have been the top comment(s). When I wrote my (obviously stupid) first comment, the other top comments were (then) not about that at all. Was (instead) just about avoiding the word of the post. Sorry for all this.
P.S. : That stupid comment of mine was :
spoilerGet offended all you want but read this :
>…“on average”…
( that citation is from the post )
Thanks 😊 These are the best world I think I ever got on the Internet. I try to be better (and make others so) which means sometimes exposing my ignorance (or that of others).
P.S. : in response to this kind comment of yours :
It takes a smart person to change their mind, and a strong person to admit it publicly. You’re a good egg.
I'm offended because it is so daft. If I had to define a man and a woman, I would say that it is currently difficult as there are two definitions, one being based on biological sex (which is itself a surprisingly ticklish concept) and the other based around gender and self identification. Personally, I'm happy with the latter. The former is useful in medical contexts.
@HeartyBeast I like what you say : both definitions are interesting. Please notice the one based on self-identification is quite in fashion since 5 or 10 years but like all fashions it should subside a bit in the coming years, I mean at least in the western world (i think). When (if) this happens, the definition based on phenotypes will be seen as more important …it’s not just important for medical application : this is an oversimplification (of course).
P.S. : in response to your comment :
spoilerI’m offended because it is so daft. If I had to define a man and a woman, I would say that it is currently difficult as there are two definitions, one being based on biological sex (which is itself a surprisingly ticklish concept) and the other based around gender and self identification. Personally, I’m happy with the latter. The former is useful in medical contexts.
"Man" and "woman" are archetypes. Not descrptions of objects, like "table" or "chair" -- instead, like "hero" or "villain" or "aristocrat" or "scoundrel."
All of us have an archetype we identify with; some of us have a physical appearance or characteristics that don't match the archetype we identify with. Some of us feel that it would benefit our mental health to have our physical appearance match more closely with the archetype. Among other things, it makes it so that other people are more likely to see us as us, rather than seeing a person who isn't us.
Not being seen is deeply traumatic. If one's physical characteristics cause them trauma, those characteristics should be considered disabilities, and we should welcome resolutions to them from medical science.
Some of us identify very strongly with one of "man" or "woman," others more weakly. Some of us are in between somewhere, or switch back and forth depending on the day. Or don't identify on that gender spectrum at all, or in some other dimension not represented by those two points.
That's why we call people what they want to be called. I'm not going to pretend that it's easy to get your lizard brain to really see some of us as "men" or "women" when the physical appearance doesn't match our expectations. But just using the correct language goes a long way towards communicating that you want to see them, and by extension, reduce their trauma.
Now that you know this (and of course, if you agree), you must grapple with the fact that misgendering people is traumatic (which is to me a reminder to try harder every time), and that misgendering people on purpose is simply cruel.
Side note, I made a point through this comment to refer to us instead of the more arm's length "some people, other people, these people, those people." We are some people, we are other people, these people, those people.
@Nougat believe there is now a bug, at least on my side : the post does not show correctly and I can’t see my comments anymore. Or maybe my comments were removed (?) I don’t know.
Because of this I will make a copy of your comment here :
your commentFrom : @Nougat
>Ah, I just thought of something. >“Man” and “woman” are archetypes. Not descrptions of objects, like “table” or “chair” – instead, like “hero” or “villain” or “aristocrat” or “scoundrel.” >All of us have an archetype we identify with; some of us have a physical appearance or characteristics that don’t match the archetype we identify with. Some of us feel that it would benefit our mental health to have our physical appearance match more closely with the archetype. Among other things, it makes it so that other people are more likely to see us as us, rather than seeing a person who isn’t us. >Not being seen is deeply traumatic. If one’s physical characteristics cause them trauma, those characteristics should be considered disabilities, and we should welcome resolutions to them from medical science. >Some of us identify very strongly with one of “man” or “woman,” others more weakly. Some of us are in between somewhere, or switch back and forth depending on the day. Or don’t identify on that gender spectrum at all, or in some other dimension not represented by those two points. >That’s why we call people what they want to be called. I’m not going to pretend that it’s easy to get your lizard brain to really see some of us as “men” or “women” when the physical appearance doesn’t match our expectations. But just using the correct language goes a long way towards communicating that you want to see them, and by extension, reduce their trauma. >Now that you know this (and of course, if you agree), you must grapple with the fact that misgendering people is traumatic (which is to me a reminder to try harder every time), and that misgendering people on purpose is simply cruel. >Side note, I made a point through this comment to refer to us instead of the more arm’s length “some people, other people, these people, those people.” We are some people, we are other people, these people, those people
I have an old mind and I live in an old world where woman and man are quite very much as defined as table and chair. Not perfectly defined, with many exceptions, but still.
XY gonadal dysgenesis : They are many case of XY chromosome embryos that becomes real woman : biologically and genitally. I believe (?) there are also cases of XX becoming (real) men (I am not sure).
SexismSexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one’s sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls.[1] It has been linked to gender roles and stereotypes,[2][3] and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another.[4] Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape, and other forms of sexual violence.[5][6] Discrimination in this context is defined as discrimination toward people based on their gender identity[7] or their gender or sex differences.[8] An example of this is workplace inequality.[8] Sexism may arise from social or cultural customs and norms.
Nevertheless I stand by what I wrote above.
What’s your point ?
P.S. : My previous comment was :
it’s even more controversial to discuss the three percent IQ difference in (average) intelligence between men and women. For example, see how this comment will be downvoted, even if it is true.
Yeah doesn’t it really suck when people use some arbitrary point system to indicate that you don’t quite measure up to others?
I like it in here. I like Lemmy. I like being sometimes upvoted or even I like being downvoted because I can understand why what people think. Sometimes it will make me change my mind or at least re-think (reconsider). Sometimes I know I will be down devoted and I post anyway just because I want the conversation to rise (to move) in some direction.
For me it’s no more arbitrary than when talking with someone and seeing if they smile or if they frown.
P.S. : my previous comment in this tread was :
spoilerit’s even more controversial to discuss the three percent IQ difference in (average) intelligence between men and women. For example, see how this comment will be downvoted, even if it is true.
Out of all of the problems we have, this joker decided this made up one was actually worth his energy and effort. What a fucking stupid time to be alive.
boingboing.net
Active