v) If the meaning of the word needs to be lost to achieve the aims that we need to achieve, then the word itself ought to be lost. Meaningless words are linguistic barriers to communication. So if the word female is so very un-salvageable (even through a redefinition that actually applies some level of meaning) then get rid of it as a term. It's not hard to do that.
vi) Generally when one makes an assessment about a system, one needs to logically justify it. Just going "nu uh!" doesn't make you right about the technical system being cissexist. I've provided my reasoning, where's yours?
The rest of what you said is perfectly justified. So if I referred to myself as truly objective then I'll retract that. I don't see how that makes the system of biological classification cissexist though anymore than I see how religion is a violent system (because people have used it and abused it for violence). Let's not confuse people (and their flaws) and overall conceptual systems (and their separate flaws)
vii) Erm... I make allowances for trans folk too, yanno. Like trans guys' SRS results.
The fact that it isn't a minority of people who use it in cissexist ways is certainly a compelling problem (I still disagree with your assessment of me). It does not justify having junk words with recursive definitions. That is, as I have been saying continuously, the wrong solution to the problem.
I misunderstood you then. Keep in mind that the allowances we discussed above (made for trans folk too, not just cis folk) is why perfection isn't required.
You won't have any problems convincing me the classification system is outdated, prone to abuse and problematic. You may have problems convincing me the system itself is cissexist but that really doesn't change the fact that I still support overhauling it to stop even the abuse of the system to create cissexist discourse (meaning that I support action taken on that front). With that out of the way, why won't you address the entire point of my post about recursive definitions? Why are we trying to retain a meaningless word after making it meaningless with a recursive definition? What is the point of identifying as something that has no meaning? Why (if you identify as female) would you identify as female if all it means is that you do?
Or do you not support the recursive definition and are only discussing male and female as flawed words? I guess I'm just curious about your view on what the actual point of my post was, instead of the perceived point or side points.
Re: Part 2
vi) Generally when one makes an assessment about a system, one needs to logically justify it. Just going "nu uh!" doesn't make you right about the technical system being cissexist. I've provided my reasoning, where's yours?
The rest of what you said is perfectly justified. So if I referred to myself as truly objective then I'll retract that. I don't see how that makes the system of biological classification cissexist though anymore than I see how religion is a violent system (because people have used it and abused it for violence). Let's not confuse people (and their flaws) and overall conceptual systems (and their separate flaws)
vii) Erm... I make allowances for trans folk too, yanno. Like trans guys' SRS results.
The fact that it isn't a minority of people who use it in cissexist ways is certainly a compelling problem (I still disagree with your assessment of me). It does not justify having junk words with recursive definitions. That is, as I have been saying continuously, the wrong solution to the problem.
I misunderstood you then. Keep in mind that the allowances we discussed above (made for trans folk too, not just cis folk) is why perfection isn't required.
You won't have any problems convincing me the classification system is outdated, prone to abuse and problematic. You may have problems convincing me the system itself is cissexist but that really doesn't change the fact that I still support overhauling it to stop even the abuse of the system to create cissexist discourse (meaning that I support action taken on that front). With that out of the way, why won't you address the entire point of my post about recursive definitions? Why are we trying to retain a meaningless word after making it meaningless with a recursive definition? What is the point of identifying as something that has no meaning? Why (if you identify as female) would you identify as female if all it means is that you do?
Or do you not support the recursive definition and are only discussing male and female as flawed words? I guess I'm just curious about your view on what the actual point of my post was, instead of the perceived point or side points.