I feel like this is shortsighted. Instead, legislation should be in place to add another category so that there is a space for sex and gender. Not that I would expect such based actions from this dude.
I know males are on average stronger than females, but I have yet to meet a trans girl who I couldn’t beat in a physical challenge. I’m under average height, don’t work out, and I don’t have genes that give me muscular advantage, but in every physical challenge thus far, they came first.
I know this is probably a joke comment, but you’ve got me intrigued - how many trans girls do you know and how often do you compete if physical challenges? Are they of the Double Dare variety or are they more Olympic in nature? Do you allow them to train an come back for a rematch?
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.
Theres a lot of obvious layers of stupidity here, i wanna point out the ludicrousness of thinking you can define legislative legal terms through executive order.
After that he signed an order that declares his penis to be totally average or a little bigger than average, and that it’s totally normal for it to be that color & shape and have a bend in it.
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).
The order declares that, in matters of the state, the “biological differences between the sexes are enduring” and that the “sex” of a person will be defined by the gender designated at birth.
This means that insecure men in Nebraska can now go in to the dive bar they get drunk at starting at 1030 AM, and hit on any woman in the place without fear of her secretly having a penis.
Not that there are any women in that bar, that they’d ever have a chance at taking one home, or, that this executive order actually means any of that. But the idiots who support this kind of thing will think it does.
My wife didn’t want to move to Minnesota, so we bought a house here, and aren’t likely to leave now. Had I not met her when I did I likely would have left a few years ago.
I think you don’t know how often it’s not one of those two, and if someone is going to get to pick, maybe we should also let individuals pick for themselves too.
Edit:
Looked at that profile…
Pretty sure you don’t think at all, easiest block of the week. Have fun shouting hated into the void
You are thinking of sex. Gender comes from the same root as genre - like how you categorize books. It was initially used to define things loosely by cultural traits like “tribe” or “type” and was used in the 15 century to describe men and women in a tongue in cheek way. Basically saying “the tribe of woman” right before trying to be witty about how women don’t make any sense because they are like another culture. Other uses would have been to distinguish differences between any different nations, families, groups. So your gendre could have been “English” or “From this specific village where they eat a lot of cheese” or of a social class.
The word got hijacked by Victorian sensibilities which used it euphemistically in that “tribe of” way for the word sex because having a woman saying the word sex aloud to a room in the scientific sense of the word caused monocles to shoot out of men’s eyesockets at lethal speeds and early feminists needed language they could use without being censored… But the modern usage of gender is not a euphemism for sex. They are two distinct words.
Gender does not concern itself with any part of the person’s body. It refers more to classification by cultural attributes. Like how you would decide if a book belongs in the mystery section or romance. Whether the book is hard or soft cover is not relevant to genre classification in the same way male /female/intersex is largely irrelevant in regards to gender classification.
Discount Lex luthor termed out and it was a three way race for the Republican nomination.
Democrats will never win the state again so it was a game of who’s the least awful Republican?
Residents of Omaha and the surrounding area flocked to change their registration to Republican to vote in the primary. A moderate who wasn’t fucking insane was running and we tried our hardest to get him the seat. The other two were so similar we thought they’d split the crazy vote and the moderates would win out.
That’s true. But “on average” in circumstances like this is meaningless; “on average,” a person is male. But I think we can agree that some women do exist.
It’s not meaningless, but not meaningful enough for a legislative definition of sex. The law must be consistently applicable to people who aren’t “average”.
boingboing.net
Newest