“Every word that is uttered creates an angel.”
the Fertile Crescent
Joined December 2012
- Tweets1K
- Following698
- Followers1.1K
- Likes42.1K
Wait a minute, פוני (“pony”) now actually means ponytail and not bangs (like the bangs on a pony) as it used to??? When did that happen???
“Pony” (פוני) was always one of those foreign words that had a misleading meaning. No longer, I guess.
I think this is a reasonable policy to follow, not only in technical discourse but in everyday social media combat as well.
So much of the arguing ostensibly over sex and gender comes down to arguments over words. It could be cleared up just by following this guideline.
I understand that this policy is not neutral. By saying e.g. “genitally male” instead of “genitally male-typical”, you’re implicitly endorsing a plural conception of sex: the idea that there are multiple, legitimate sex concepts (genital sex, genetic sex,etc.).
So Colin Wright is justified in objecting. I think it’s a good policy, but that doesn’t mean it should be enforced by an editorial board. And it certainly should not be enforced by saying, as that announcement says, that the question is settled scientifically/philosophically.
🚨ALERT: The editors of the journal Men and Masculinities will no longer allow authors to refer to individuals as being "male."
If an author uses the term, they should "specify which dimension(s) of sex are at issue, since sex itself refers to several only loosely correlated dimensions rather than a single underlying fact."
For example, trans-identifying male swimmer Lia Thomas must be referred to as a woman, and his maleness, if mentioned at all, must be attached to specific traits, like genitals, hormones, and chromosomes.
You cannot call Lia Thomas a "male" in this journal, but a woman with "male genitals" and "male sex chromosomes."
The first author of this editorial—the Managing Editor of Men and Masculinities, Tristen Kade—is a woman who identifies as a man.
The model of biological sex this editorial is pushing is what I refer to in my scholarly article "Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes" as the "multi-level" sex model. This model is not merely wrong—it is self-refuting.
From my article:
"Traits are labeled 'male-typical' or 'female-typical' only because they correlate with organisms already identified as male or female—an identification that, in anisogamous species, is made ultimately by reference to gametes."
Read my article at the link below.
🔗link.springer.com/article/10…
This is wild that we’re going back to arguments from like 2016! So I’ll step into my time machine and point out…
…that there’s nothing wrong with circular definitions, as long as there’s a good way to resolve the circularity. And there is! But Kit Fine’s way is not good.
The circular definition is that being a woman is defined by self-identification as a woman. As I remember from years ago, Fine’s idea was that if a man identifies as a woman at some instant in time, he’s not changing the extension of woman at that time. Rather, he’s changing the future definition going forward. So I don’t even know if you’d properly call Fine’s definition circular at all.
Anyway, this doesn’t seem like a solution to the problem. Intuitively, we think self-identification should change the extension of the category woman instantaneously. And you could come up with various counterintuitive cases with Fine’s diachronic conception of it.
I think there is an intuitively and logically acceptable resolution to the circularity. It’s right here in the SEP <plato.stanford.edu/entries/d…>. Circularity is interpreted as a rule of revision. This general schema maps exactly onto the specific example of defining woman as those who self-identify as woman.
(I know the post was about their fucked up academic philosophy discipline not about the substance of that paper, but it got QT’d by Wesley Yang who did comment on the substance.)
The problem with the “Israel is a democracy” thing is that it’s true only for a thin, formal idea of democracy: the ballot box. The REALLY divisive issue—should Israel be a Jewish state?—is not up to a vote, because Jews are a majority.
Is a state where a significant minority sector rejects the state’s basic constitution a democracy? Where different ethnic groups have fundamentally different interests, and the majority ethnic group’s interests always prevail? It’s a democracy only in that formal, procedural sense of elections and majority rule.
That’s how I interpret what member of parliament Ahmad Tibi said, that Israel is a Jewish, democratic state—a democracy for the Jews and a Jewish state for the Arabs.
I support Eizenkot because of his political position, but I think this is the best argument against him. He’s a good guy, but he just doesn’t seem as smart as either Netanyahu or Bennett, and he could make a horrible strategic error like Rabin did.
Still hope he wins though.
In 1991, Yitzhak Rabin was not “some opportunistic lefty keen to give away the store with Israeli Arab support” either. No one thought that of him.
But he wasn’t very good at politics. And the left—both the Israeli left and the international left—maneuvered him into signing the Oslo accords with the PLO by 1993, within just two years.
The result was a strategic catastrophe that annihilated Rabin’s Labor Party and still haunts Israel 33 years later.
There’s no need to dislike or disrespect Gadi Eisencott. But it would be helpful if Israel could avoid having him as prime minister.
Of course there is no such right in international law. Usually if you look at their arguments, they’ll point to a UN *General Assembly* resolution saying Palestinians have the right to resist.
But General Assembly resolutions are not binding. They’re just for blowing off steam.
Quality of YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING posts has plummeted since a week ago. It’s like we’re in Eternal September but for YCSE takes.
Aaron retweeted
Virtually everyone who goes viral for public filmed behavior is yes in some kind of mental breakdown. That’s one big reason why not to have these cycles to begin with.
Oh this is sure to work, the goyim love having the Holocaust shoved down their throat
Holocaust school lessons to be improved after 'shocking' antisemitism review bbc.in/4i1Woug
Pathetic, loser mentality, trying to be like everybody else.
Should’ve instead just doubled down on Bob and Doug McKenzie.
Recently @TheEconomist called Canada a “blandly rich vanilla milkshake of a country.”
But in reality, we’re a diverse, educated and rich in resources the world wants. We’ve got dim sum, biryani, pasta, perogies and pho to name a few.
If you find Canada bland, I have questions about your research. And your lunch.🥪 🍜 🍝 🥟 🇨🇦
They started using this English orthography a couple years after I learned to read. That was in the 1960s in University City, Missouri. My little brother learned to read and write using this.
I’m surprised it was still being used as late as the 1980s, two decades later!
Can you read this? If not, you might not have grown up in rural Kentucky in the 1980s.
I was taught to read using a language that no longer exists: shorturl.at/XIwKI
Gonna keep reposting this until it gets the likes it deserves, God damn it!
Watching the movie is what they call “the drama of reading”: the reader’s filling in the ever-changing gaps in the information provided by the narrative.
