Heather Heying defines "female;" David Sacks on censorship; Michael H. Creswell on the Achievement Gap; Iain Murray on curbing regulation; Ed West on sanctions and consequences
"The word Mokita is a fantastic word taken from a language called Kivila. It is spoken in Papua New Guinea. The best English translation you can get of Mokita is, “the truth we all know but agree not to talk about.”
There are several concepts in the English language related to the notion of Mokita, such as the “elephant in the room” (e.g., a horribly scarred accident victim sees friends for the first time, none of whom mention the drastically altered appearance), as well as so-called “polite fiction”, in which everyone is aware of the truth but pretends to believe some alternative version to avoid shame, embarrassment, or conflict. Euphemisms are often used for polite fiction (e.g., “he’s going to wash the car” when everyone knows he is going to see his mistress, drug dealer, or on his way to the horse track).
Mokita can do a lot of damage if the person on the other end of it is suffering from denial as it allows them to continue in their false sense of reality. On the other hand, if the person is aware of the situation, it can be a social nicety that helps them avoid anxiety or embarrassment."
Regarding defining women, KBJ surely misspoke when she said she couldn't do it because she's not a biologist. The trans activists and everyone following along after them do not define women in terms of biology. In fact, they say you're hateful if you try to do so. It might be more in line with them to say that you need a psychologist to define a woman.
We need words for males who reject being "men", and females who reject being "women". I call Lia Thomas a quasi-woman, since q'she rejects being a man. Don't know if q'her genitals have been mutilated, er, operated on. Elliot Page, nee Ellen (of X-men!), has had surgery and q'his top looks like a reasonable skinny guy; q'he's a q'man.
If people no longer choose to fit into the non-binary, we do need words to describe them. It's polite to refer to them closer to how they want to be thought of - but it's discrimination against women, born XX and going thru body changes in puberty to active their sexual organs, to treat XY folk who reject being men as just the same as other women. Q'women are NOT just the same.
In sports, they should get rid of Men's sports, and have Women's (XX who are women), and Open.
‘… It would be possible to create a social media moderation policy that is rooted in First Amendment principles. ‘
That assumes these malefactors wish to do so.
In fact we already have it: English Common Law, whence the 1st Amendment arose. Freedom of speech unless it incites hatred or violence. Simple!
There are 4 tests: 1) Was there an intent to incite? 2) Was the speech capable of incitement? 3) Were those who heard the speech likely to be incited? 4) Was anyone incited?
The problem here for the authoritarian is the burden of proof is on them. If however words, phrases, dissent is considered incitement, the only proof needed is whether the individual actually said the word, phrase or dissented. And the list is not fixed and definitions flexible.
First and foremost there needs to be a cultural agreement on the meaning of words. We cannot be a nation of laws if the words that define those laws have ever changing meaning.
If the desire is to minimize sexual stereotypes then pursue that agenda but still acknowledge that "male" and "female" have literal, factual definitions. Otherwise, you will lose credibility and the agenda will become politically divisive.
One of the most bizarre aspects of the LBTQ+ movement is the premise that the concerns of the members of that group have priority over those not in the group. Do tell, how can society treat all people equally under the law if a subgroup of people are able to demand their feelings are more important than the feelings of others?
The illegitimacy of the "special claims" for LBTQ+ is clearly seen in the case of women sports. Here we have a category created to meet the interests of female athletes. This grouping has been extremely successful and beneficial to society. Enabling biological men to compete in this group serves a very limited interest - mainly the ego of the man - and is a huge disservice to almost all other female competitors.
How did allowing men to compete as women even happen? It happened because the sophists pushed the lie that a man could be a woman.
There are fair ways to have coed competition, just as there are fair ways for men of different weight, size and age to compete against each other. But those with a social agenda did not care about fairness.
It was already figured out. Trans-sexuals (correct name), transvestites, discretely used womens lavatories. Women/men used mens lavs and went in the cubicles. They interfered with nobody; nobody knew nor cared.
Sex change used to be a long and difficult process. It first required significant psychiatric evaluation, psychological preparation before anything physiological or surgical happened. It certainly would not be carried out on a child. Then it started with just dressing the part - although this may already have been habitual for some time, maybe accompanied by hormone treatment. This would be perhaps 6 months to a year and would be reversible, to make sure the individual was content. Then surgery in stages, and this also over a period of a couple of years.
It was emotionally, physically a painful and stressful time. Participation in sports or armed forces was not even a consideration, too much else going on. The goal was to become physically and emotionally a woman, not lead a campaign.
I think the so-called trans-sexuals we hear about now are fake. Many of them do not go through the process, particularly not surgery.
Re: "But no rational person can believe it. It is a lie that everyone lives by. Is there a word for that?"
Charade.
Or, more charitably: An article of faith.
Compare Leszek Kolakowski's definition of Communism: "the regime of organized make-believe" (Main Currents of Marxism, volume III, p. 88).
"The word Mokita is a fantastic word taken from a language called Kivila. It is spoken in Papua New Guinea. The best English translation you can get of Mokita is, “the truth we all know but agree not to talk about.”
There are several concepts in the English language related to the notion of Mokita, such as the “elephant in the room” (e.g., a horribly scarred accident victim sees friends for the first time, none of whom mention the drastically altered appearance), as well as so-called “polite fiction”, in which everyone is aware of the truth but pretends to believe some alternative version to avoid shame, embarrassment, or conflict. Euphemisms are often used for polite fiction (e.g., “he’s going to wash the car” when everyone knows he is going to see his mistress, drug dealer, or on his way to the horse track).
Mokita can do a lot of damage if the person on the other end of it is suffering from denial as it allows them to continue in their false sense of reality. On the other hand, if the person is aware of the situation, it can be a social nicety that helps them avoid anxiety or embarrassment."
Regarding defining women, KBJ surely misspoke when she said she couldn't do it because she's not a biologist. The trans activists and everyone following along after them do not define women in terms of biology. In fact, they say you're hateful if you try to do so. It might be more in line with them to say that you need a psychologist to define a woman.
We need words for males who reject being "men", and females who reject being "women". I call Lia Thomas a quasi-woman, since q'she rejects being a man. Don't know if q'her genitals have been mutilated, er, operated on. Elliot Page, nee Ellen (of X-men!), has had surgery and q'his top looks like a reasonable skinny guy; q'he's a q'man.
If people no longer choose to fit into the non-binary, we do need words to describe them. It's polite to refer to them closer to how they want to be thought of - but it's discrimination against women, born XX and going thru body changes in puberty to active their sexual organs, to treat XY folk who reject being men as just the same as other women. Q'women are NOT just the same.
In sports, they should get rid of Men's sports, and have Women's (XX who are women), and Open.
‘… It would be possible to create a social media moderation policy that is rooted in First Amendment principles. ‘
That assumes these malefactors wish to do so.
In fact we already have it: English Common Law, whence the 1st Amendment arose. Freedom of speech unless it incites hatred or violence. Simple!
There are 4 tests: 1) Was there an intent to incite? 2) Was the speech capable of incitement? 3) Were those who heard the speech likely to be incited? 4) Was anyone incited?
The problem here for the authoritarian is the burden of proof is on them. If however words, phrases, dissent is considered incitement, the only proof needed is whether the individual actually said the word, phrase or dissented. And the list is not fixed and definitions flexible.
“transwomen are not women.”
Thanks for the clarification, Heather. And transwomen are not “men” (and transmen not “women.”
OK, but I don’t really see how this helps a lot in figuring out who can use which bathroom, join the army, or participate is which sporting events.
"OK, but I don’t really see how this helps ..."
First and foremost there needs to be a cultural agreement on the meaning of words. We cannot be a nation of laws if the words that define those laws have ever changing meaning.
If the desire is to minimize sexual stereotypes then pursue that agenda but still acknowledge that "male" and "female" have literal, factual definitions. Otherwise, you will lose credibility and the agenda will become politically divisive.
I don't know why anyone needs to "admit" anything in order to discuss how people who identify as transgender are treated.
How should all people be treated?
One of the most bizarre aspects of the LBTQ+ movement is the premise that the concerns of the members of that group have priority over those not in the group. Do tell, how can society treat all people equally under the law if a subgroup of people are able to demand their feelings are more important than the feelings of others?
The illegitimacy of the "special claims" for LBTQ+ is clearly seen in the case of women sports. Here we have a category created to meet the interests of female athletes. This grouping has been extremely successful and beneficial to society. Enabling biological men to compete in this group serves a very limited interest - mainly the ego of the man - and is a huge disservice to almost all other female competitors.
How did allowing men to compete as women even happen? It happened because the sophists pushed the lie that a man could be a woman.
There are fair ways to have coed competition, just as there are fair ways for men of different weight, size and age to compete against each other. But those with a social agenda did not care about fairness.
Sorry I still do not see the link you do between the label and the decision about who can compete in women's sports.
It was already figured out. Trans-sexuals (correct name), transvestites, discretely used womens lavatories. Women/men used mens lavs and went in the cubicles. They interfered with nobody; nobody knew nor cared.
Sex change used to be a long and difficult process. It first required significant psychiatric evaluation, psychological preparation before anything physiological or surgical happened. It certainly would not be carried out on a child. Then it started with just dressing the part - although this may already have been habitual for some time, maybe accompanied by hormone treatment. This would be perhaps 6 months to a year and would be reversible, to make sure the individual was content. Then surgery in stages, and this also over a period of a couple of years.
It was emotionally, physically a painful and stressful time. Participation in sports or armed forces was not even a consideration, too much else going on. The goal was to become physically and emotionally a woman, not lead a campaign.
I think the so-called trans-sexuals we hear about now are fake. Many of them do not go through the process, particularly not surgery.
But have you asked them if they identify with their assigned sex?
This may help you through the moral maze: https://youtu.be/euqEEN8W_Kw
The nunnery is full, but vacancy at a kennel (better food) where I could observe more closely and contemplate.
I’d take it as a personal favour if you didn’t post pics.