Permanently banned for ‘promoting hate’

[RumAndReisling]

Following ten years uneventful membership of a major social media site I have been permanently banned for ‘promoting hate’.

Never again will I be able to participate on that site.

My crime? Saying that if you had given birth to a child, there was no way you could literally change sex and produce semen to father one.

Is this not a statement of fact, or is this now unacceptable to say?

AIBU to say that my husband isn’t able to give birth?

It's not no reason though is it? It's a vital reason. You are promoting a world view which is hateful to women and anti women's equality. If you can't define a core issue which supports your anti women stand perhaps you need to look at your thinking and move to a more equality supporting place.

Look, it seems like you're defining "man" by 'having a male body or appearing to be male, due to deliberate actions to change one's appearance'. Would you say that is fair, flaffy?

If you thought it was a feeling or inner sense there would be no concept of "passing" by appearance.

If so, I think we are mostly in agreement on the latter point at least.

Basically you use 'trans' to mean wanting to be the opposite sex, right?

First off, it wasn't an attempt at a definition. I don't have a definition of "man". People don't usually define words unless they're required to for an essay or because it's their job or because someone demands they do so in a debate. And to define a word takes a huge amount of careful thought. I don't go about the world with a definition of "man" in my head. When I said a man is a person who seems like a man, I meant that if I see someone who seems to me like they are man (for whatever reason, including subconscious cues) then I'll think they're a man and put them in the "man" category in my head. If I received further information about the person that changed what category I thought of them as, then it would change. That's it. It's not a definition, it's just the way language works in practice.

@literalviolence can I say you're not a genuine poster now, because I said a whole paragraph to you and you only engaged with the final point and ignored the rest?

My initial assessment of whether someone is a man or a woman would be based on appearance yes. Then if they or someone else told me something else then my assessment might change based on that.

And to define a word takes a huge amount of careful thought. I don't go about the world with a definition of "man" in my head. When I said a man is a person who seems like a man, I meant that if I see someone who seems to me like they are man (for whatever reason, including subconscious cues) then I'll think they're a man and put them in the "man" category in my head

So you have a definition then. Because you cant put someone in a category you say you have no definition for.

You can't identify as something you can't define.it needs a definition or the whole thing is meaningless.

Man- adult human male. Its three words. Its not complex at all.

So how when you dont know what a definition, can u use a word?

It's hard to follow your posts flaff but I think it's because you see "man" and "male" as essentially the same thing so you use them interchangeably, forgetting that we don't know what you actually mean by "man"!

You do understand why laws, policies, medicine, etc need to have a clear definition of what a man is though, right?

If it kept changing from "male" to "person of either sex who has a red car" to "person that has big hands" to "person that is a natural leader" to "person who is tough and aggressive" we'd have real problems.

For instance, how would you suggest writing a policy that kept men out of spaces but allowed transwomen? What do you believe actually makes someone a woman or man, and would you really change that based on what anyone you met tells you? A definition that is not consistent makes the word utterly meaningless.

It's a subconscious definition, I haven't got a verbalised one that I use. My brain thinks someone is a man. I don't go over in my head the definition of a man. I've never attempted to define "man" until today. People don't learn language by definitions. Children start to use words without ever defining them. You know this.

Maybe sometimes when I've used the word man on this thread I've specifically meant male and other times I haven't? I don't remember. I'm just using the word to try to express what I mean. I don't consciously define every word as I write it. Nobody does that.

Yes sometimes policymakers need definitions of words, that's not my job. I'm glad it's not my job because it's hard. That's why I'm not providing you with definitions here because I don't routinely define things.

But we are adults. Not children. We can read . We have the benefit of life experience.

How do you tell if someone is a man or a can of spaghetti if we haven't learnt what words mean

So if you categorise humans in your head what definition are you using.

I'm just using the word to try to express what I mean.

Well, you have said you don't know what you mean, so you can't believe you are expressing it?
At least you're open about using words and not knowing what they mean!

You encounter things in your life and you're told what they are and that's how you learn to speak. Adults continue using language based on that knowledge, not because they've read the dictionary. If my child asks me what a word means, usually the best way to explain is to give them some examples of things that are that.

We can’t have laws if we don’t have clear definitions.
We can’t have child protection laws if we can’t define a child.
We can’t protect women if we can’t define what a woman is.

If you are part of a movement that seeks to obfuscate the definition of words which are the foundation of laws to protect vulnerable people, you’re going to be responsible for any person who consequently suffers from this lack of protection.

Please define for me the following words without pulling a definition from a dictionary:
Well
Have
Know
Believe
Expressing
Open
Not
About
Mean
Words
What
They

If you're not able to do this I'll disregard your post because you obviously don't know what you mean.

When you say 'someone seems like a man' you must have a "thing" in mind that you are mentally comparing them to, to know that they are either like that thing or not like it.

If that "thing" is a generic male person that's very different from the "thing" being a female who looks like Kylie Jenner but is wearing a "i love kickboxing" badge. And different again from a can of spaghetti.

Yeah that's right we can't, and I'm not the person who writes definitions for lawmakers am I.

I'm not "part of a movement" I'm just arguing with people on Mumsnet.

Are these words used to describe, in law, protected groups of people?
Are these words vulnerable to violence from other words?
Are these words murdered at a rate of two per week by words they are or have been in relationships with?

These diversion tactics don’t do anything but make your point look even more ridiculous, illogical and indefensible.

I'm not going to sit here typing them all out because it'll take ages and I'm trying to get my DD ready but I'm confident I could tell you what I meant by them, given enough time, yes.

Eg Know - to hold knowledge of, or be acquainted with someone or something.

You have said you don't know what you mean by "man" yet you keep using it.

I'd have failed many a test or assignment if my answers were simply examples of a word I refused to define amd no actual definition. Everyone knows what a man and a woman is. Eveb those who pretend it's difficult or impossible to define.

Watch 2 males regardless of what they call themselves, who want a baby suddenly remember what a woman is

Yes all correct.

Also, why can't I use a dictionary? I don't disagree with any definitions in there - do you?

Because if you have to look it up then you can't define it yourself. Have you read every single one to know you don't disagree with any of them?

"to hold knowledge of" is just as circular as "a man is someone who seems like a man"
Define "knowledge".

Remember that "man" and "woman" / "boy" and "girl" are supposed to be SO obviously defined that we are supposed to accept that when children say they are one of them based on a feeling we don't question it. And yet adults say it's too complicated.

Knowledge is a different word from Know, and defined differently - did you think it was the same word?

You're allowed to look up "man"! I wasnt suggesting this was a memory test. It's "adult human male". Do you accept this or do you propose a different meaning?

Knowledge is an abstract noun. It’s conceptual. It can’t be seen, heard, smelt, felt or tasted.

Man is a common noun. A material reality which has objective truths. A word which is vital in order to create laws and policies.

You’re arguing apples and de ja vu.

You’re not making a point.

You’re just clarifying that you have no point.