For those who have kids at university - wokedom

[Teal99]

I have no kids, never went to uni - but where I work there are of young graduates who all seem to be totally on board with the trans woman is a woman concept, using pronouns and all manner of wokedom. They all seem like one group who all say the same things, think the same way....

Just for curiosity, if you have children at uni, or just graduated - are there people in this age group who think differently, even if they don't publicly express to their peers/friends that they don't agree with them? I think there must be some individual thought, which must be hard if they want to fit in/not be ostracised.

I think I just want a bit of hope that this period of madness will pass by and people will start to push back against a lot of wokedom. Or is the toothpaste too far out of the tube?

Apparently not. They seem quite confident in their wokeness.

"Woke" was used originally by Black Americans to indicate that if you were woke, you understood many of the structural inequalities that Black people lived under. Not everyone accepts that they are discriminated against, many think "it's all about attitude" and that you can make your way as a Black American if you just try hard.

There is therefore an equivalent for women who don't think we are discriminated against as a sex class. The consciousness raising groups of the 70s were intended to help women realise this.

There is nothing wrong with the original concept, it's been hijacked by people who, ironically, think there is no class-based oppression.

It may already have been posted but I love this on Wokery and its faithful followers. medium.com/rebel-wisdom/sleeping-woke-cancel-culture-and-simulated-religion-5f96af2cc107

@RedtreesRedtrees

“The definition of a woman as an adult human female is never going to change. People may be forced to say it has, for fear of losing their job or being “cancelled”, but nothing material will ever change.”

I’m not so sure. Ultimately, there is nothing that anchors a descriptive term to a particular thing other than it’s use (and acceptance) by people to describe that thing. You need only observe the extent of public debate on this topic to see that many people are already using the term woman in a way that is different to the existing dictionary definition. Of course words can sustain different definitions in different contexts, something which is apparent even in a legal setting where the definition of something in one piece of legislation may differ to that in another. That I suspect is a pointer to where the future lies.

If the definition of "woman" did change to include transwoman,and this became valid throughout all institutions and in public, we would then need a new word for "adult human female".

Because that's what words and language are about. They describe things precisely in order to differentiate. That's why there are so many different words for "blue" when it comes to painting your room, and even for white. If we can't differentiate precisely, we get such awkward, ugly and insulting word-salads such as "people who menstruate" and "cervixhavers". Imagine those words turning up in a novel you were reading, or in a pop-song, or simply in conversation. It would be horrible.

At the moment, we all know what is meant by the word "woman". Even toddlers can distinguish men from women. We don't need dictionary definitions or to take off our knickers or to have our chromosomes tested. We know. YOU know, and don't pretend you don't. Even if you are at Uni, you know.

If "women" were ever to become inclusive of "people with penises" we would need a new word for "people without penises". A new word for "people with female anatomy". We need precise words. Words are by definition exclusive. The word woman excludes men, people with male anatomy, for a very good reason.

It's called communication. We use words for communication, and words have to have meaning, the more precise, the better. I've heard that the Icelandic language has several words for "snow", or is it another word I'm thinking of? .

I always saw the word "woke" used in a sarcastic way on this board to describe people who think they're being woke and enlightened when they're actually being ignorant. Maybe there should be quotations around the word woke when it's used in this sarcastic way.

It's an adjective, anyway, and adjectives are more subjective than nouns. Words like strong, beautiful, edgy, etc. will certainly mean different things to different people.
Words (concrete nouns) like grass, house, cloud have a much more restrictive meaning that isn't so debatable.

The word "feminine" is also subjective, whereas "female" is not.

“If the definition of "woman" did change to include transwoman,and this became valid throughout all institutions and in public, we would then need a new word for "adult human female”.

I agree! The same applying to ‘Man’.

I said pretty much the same yesterday Wandering.
I use it to describe people who think they represent the dictionary definition of Woke but don't. They support bandwagon trendy causes to appear woke so they can preen themselves and scold others about how "woke" they are.

@RedtreesRedtrees

“If the definition of "woman" did change to include transwoman,and this became valid throughout all institutions and in public, we would then need a new word for "adult human female”.

I agree! The same applying to ‘Man’.

But much simpler to just keep the word 'woman' meaning what it does now, especially since there still doesn't seem to be any coherent alternative definition.

Give in on this, abandon the idea that 'woman' needs to retain a meaningful definition, find a new word for AHFs (and another new one for girls, of course, and for men and boys) and the new words would soon also be encroached on. There are already TW who have the audacity to claim to be female, despite the fact that it is a purely biological term applicable across species.

I'm glad we agree on something Trees. The trouble is that then, transwomen would want to be included in that new word too. And even if it were just a minority who demanded this, they'd shout and scream to be included just the way they are now shouting and screaming for the word woman. In the same way that they want our spaces even when offered spaces of their own. There is a definite move to erase us a definable group separate from men. If you had truly followed the debate you'd have known this.

Bingo, Errol!

@RedtreesRedtrees

“If the definition of "woman" did change to include transwoman,and this became valid throughout all institutions and in public, we would then need a new word for "adult human female”.

I agree! The same applying to ‘Man’.

It wouldn't be allowed though, according to gender ideology.

There have been those who thought we could make "woman" a gender term and retain female for biology - that hasn't really gone over, has it? And what you never ever see is people who support gender ideology proposing a new word for those who have female biology - on the contrary, any attempt to differentiate is seen as an attempt to claim that female biology is inherently different than male biology, and therefore transphobic.

If the definition of "woman" did change to include transwoman,and this became valid throughout all institutions and in public, we would then need a new word for "adult human female".

But then the TRAs would want that word too. Because what they ultimately want is the erosion of distinctions between women and transwoman. So that new word would be "exclusionary" and the next campaign work of be to include people with penises in that new category. And then you could come up with another new word, but that would be deemed "problematic" as well. It would go on ad infinitum.

Which is why it's best to retain the word "woman" for adult human females.

[quote OhamIreally]@HesMyLobster could I ask if the signs for men at your DD's university are spelled mxn?[/quote]
Funnily enough she didn't mention and when I asked she said she hadn't noticed either way.
So I'm guessing men is spelled men.

As others have already said, trans women would want the new word too. It isn't a strong attachment to the letter arrangement that makes them want the word "woman." It's because they want to be adult human females, whatever the word is that means that.

Indeed.

Some transwomen have even adopted the term ciswoman.

To refer to themselves, I mean.

“ Indeed.

Some transwomen have even adopted the term ciswoman.”

I’d suggest it’s a very small proportion of an already minute demographic. I’m not sure how helpful it is to focus on ‘outliers’ because they will exist in any grouping and on any issue.

But it's the outliers who shout the loudest and who demand the fiercest, and up to now have been the tail wagging the dog.

Interesting. I’m still confused as to why these institutions/organisations are not applying their obviously reviewed policies consistently.
Regardless of whether the campaigners are arguing only for the female related words/signage etc to be changed - you would expect most organisations to review the points being made (ie not inclusive enough) and then decide to update all signage (men’s and women’s) at the same time - if the reasoning had merit why would it not have merit on both both sides?
When I was involved in the corporate world there were processes for decision making to ensure that all potentially involved aspects were considered and changes applied consistently - is that different now?

@GCAcademic

If the definition of "woman" did change to include transwoman,and this became valid throughout all institutions and in public, we would then need a new word for "adult human female".

But then the TRAs would want that word too. Because what they ultimately want is the erosion of distinctions between women and transwoman. So that new word would be "exclusionary" and the next campaign work of be to include people with penises in that new category. And then you could come up with another new word, but that would be deemed "problematic" as well. It would go on ad infinitum.

Which is why it's best to retain the word "woman" for adult human females.

Not so much the erosion of the differences between woman and trans women as the total erosion of women.

Women should be obsolete. Null and void. Is the aim I feel.

Although who would TRA blame everything on then? 🤔

@tobee this is an interesting phrase "Women should be obsolete. Null and void. Is the aim I feel."

Because of course we're seeing increasing numbers of women choosing to be men or non-binary. Non-binary certainly feels very close to null, to non-existence.

And when enough women decide to become unidentifiable units of human flesh...what comes next?

When I was involved in the corporate world there were processes for decision making to ensure that all potentially involved aspects were considered and changes applied consistently - is that different now?

For this one topic. Yes

I’m still confused as to why these institutions/organisations are not applying their obviously reviewed policies consistently.
Nobody reviews any of these things. Stonewall says "you need a trans policy". Someone who thinks they are right on writes a load of guff. Nobody looks at it (extra work). Nobody proof reads it either. It just gets carved in stone.

I’m still searching for the dolphins.

Had a busy day so just checking in to see if Redtrees has explained how she would dismiss a woman who had experienced unwanted sexual conduct at work.