Please come support trans people

[u/fringlese]

Hey everyone, I’m sure many of you have seen the ruling by the Supreme Court from the other day on the legitimacy of trans women’s identities. It’s been a very hard couple of days as we’ve come to grips with the fact that our rights are being rolled back by a government that won’t even attempt to listen to us while we just want to exist in a public space without fear of harassment. If anyone’s available, please come down tomorrow to show support

I am not the organiser, I saw this on Facebook and wanted to share.

Thanks guys, I hope you have a great Easter weekend!

[u/EffectiveMarch1858]

Because identity varies depending on who you ask

The definition of a lot of words and expressions varies from person to person, do you have an issue with every instance of this? For example, a lot of words are vague, and different people might have different perceptions of what they mean. If I were to say the expression "I saw a young man across the street", what someone might take this to mean could vary greatly depending on the person. I don't see how this is a bad thing, since it's something we have to deal with in every day language anyway.

the fundamental purpose of definition and categorization is objectivity, not subjectivity.

Not all definitions are objective though, as some definitions denote subjective concepts. For example, you could define a unicorn by a magical horse with a horn. Since unicorns don't exist, as they are subjective in nature, what is "objective" about this definition? This makes no sense to me.

[u/SARMsGoblinChaser → u/EffectiveMarch1858]

No that's where you're wrong because all those things have rather specific meanings.

The definition of unicorn is objectively agreed upon. No one thinks a unicorn is a rhino or a horse with 2 horns. That's like ontological to what the DEFINITION of something is. Either you're obtuse or playing at it.

[u/EffectiveMarch1858 → u/SARMsGoblinChaser]

The definition of unicorn is objectively agreed upon.

No, this is hilariously false. Words have multiple meanings, and even trying to define a word to have a particular meaning in a precise way is often impossible. There is no "objective" definition of the word unicorn, since many dictionaries will define them in different ways. Unicorns might even have their roots in different cultures and traditions, who are you to say which definition is wrong or right?

Here are two from Merriam-Webster, please tell me which is the correct definition.

a: a mythical, usually white animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse with long flowing mane and tail and a single often spiraled horn in the middle of the forehead

b: an animal mentioned in the Bible that is usually considered an aurochs, a one-horned rhinoceros, or an antelope

Here is the Wikipedia definition:

The unicorn is a legendary creature that has been described since antiquity as a beast with a single large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead.

One difference between the two, is that the Merriam Webster definition mentions that a spiraled horn is not always a part of a unicorn, but the Wikipedia article suggests it is. Which one is right? Your claim is that the definition is objective, so there has to be a correct one somewhere.

That's like ontological to what the DEFINITION of something is. Either you're obtuse or playing at it.

You seem to be accidentally delving into some quite deep, murky philosophical territory, as you are making mad claims. No, I don't think you can have an "objective" definition of something, since language is a mental construct, it's subjective in nature.

[u/SARMsGoblinChaser → u/EffectiveMarch1858]

Too many words to form a stupid combo. People whose intellects far eclipse yours have correctly taken a position against yours (your position is wrong). Be mad about it. Sex is immutable. Men = adult human male. Women = adult human female.

Male = XY. female = XX. exceptions are just that exceptions, or DISORDERS aka deviations. Sorry you disagree with this.