So do all other categorisation terms, which on top of that, group them with others in the same category and help the people who’d blame everything on a category of people. Specially the “-ism” -> “-ist” categorisations.
I’d rather have scientific categorisation than a social one, that would enable dialogues such as:
A: Define a “woman”, you senator/judge/other public personality.
B: … I think I am not qualified to … *more gibberish* … ( because I need to be politically correct).
And that’s probably why people prefer this choice of words. To prevent the “Cis vs Trans - you dare assume their gender” bullies from finding them as easy prey. And over time, it becomes second nature.
I feel like, in this case OC (original commenter) is trying to admit that they don’t know the “female” as a person (neither do they know anything about the relationship between the 2) and claiming that the clout is just based on her being a female.
Whether or not that is accurate, OC does get the point across.
Fine by me, specially in this case.
So do all other categorisation terms, which on top of that, group them with others in the same category and help the people who’d blame everything on a category of people. Specially the “-ism” -> “-ist” categorisations.
I’d rather have scientific categorisation than a social one, that would enable dialogues such as:
A: Define a “woman”, you senator/judge/other public personality.
B: … I think I am not qualified to … *more gibberish* … ( because I need to be politically correct).
And that’s probably why people prefer this choice of words. To prevent the “Cis vs Trans - you dare assume their gender” bullies from finding them as easy prey. And over time, it becomes second nature.
I feel like, in this case OC (original commenter) is trying to admit that they don’t know the “female” as a person (neither do they know anything about the relationship between the 2) and claiming that the clout is just based on her being a female.
Whether or not that is accurate, OC does get the point across.