Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
To be honest, I apologise if the following appears a bit terse; I’m just really frustrated with what you’ve said and this is the best I can describe why that’s the case (without watering it down) We don’t need to step back and work out the fundamental nature of sex and gender in order to have a functional conversation about them. I don’t need to provide a definition of a chair before I can tell you that ones with thr…
https://www.paulgraham.com/heresy.html>
>For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion. They do not, having said this, go on to consider whether the statement is true or not. Using such labels is the conversational equivalent of signalling an exception. That's one of the reasons they're used: to end a discussion.
>If you find yourself talking to someone who uses these labels a lot, it might be worthwhile to ask them explicitly if they believe any babies are being thrown out with the bathwater. Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true? If the answer is yes, then they're admitting to banning the truth.
----
Please don't try to end our constructive discussions, mmoose; people (men and women sure fine) have a tough enough time without having to get the language police involved.
[this will be my last response to this thread, as I continue hoping somebody learned anything, today]