I want Morocco to win purely for football, but its hard to get down with the idea that Morocco doing well in the WC represents 'Global South unity' & anti-colonial triumph when the state occupies & colonises Western Sahara, an Arab, Muslim, African & 'Global South' nation.
@PaulThomasEvans@RickRikem@JamesEsses There's a hardcore group who would probably disagree with your characterization. Anyways, thanks for the discussion without any name calling. Twitter lives
@PaulThomasEvans@RickRikem@JamesEsses Seems to me goal is to obfuscate gender and sex. You're saying transwomen use that term to mean their sex is male and gender is female?But many transwomen claim they've changed sex, not gender So which is it?If it's both and sex is meaningless, why do we need the terms? Ideology
@PaulThomasEvans@RickRikem@JamesEsses 2/ logical female/ XX chromosomes, would refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the prefix 'cis' because of the ideology inherent in those three letters. R u a woman because of biology or self-id? They're not the same.
@PaulThomasEvans@RickRikem@JamesEsses That may be true, but it's a useful heuristic to determine whether a word is a word. Sticking point for me is the goalposts move. "Transwomen are women" and "ciswomen are women" are both logical statements, but then we're debating "what is a woman". Imo it's legit for a bio/1
@PaulThomasEvans@RickRikem@JamesEsses We can't ignore language trends and we must situate words within their cultural context. "Male" and "female" have existed as generic categories for hundreds of years, at least. "Cisgender" is an academic construction from the 90s. While you're correct about it's literal meaning/1
@PaulThomasEvans@RickRikem@JamesEsses /2 words slowly and organically enter the lexicon over time. Some persist, some don't (Lindy effect). So it's unfair to say that everyone must tyrannically adopt a new word while ignoring the context. Hopefully we agree that all people deserve the same civic rights andprotections
@PaulThomasEvans@RickRikem@JamesEsses Fair enough, my point is simply that we can use this "a priori" logical framework to justify either position, and we're kinda back we're we've started.
This isn't a fucking contest. Just because the perp shot up an LGBT club doesn't mean they were radicalized by [insert your least-favorite right-wing pundit here], and just because they apparently identify as nonbinary doesn't *prove* the other case either. You're all ghoulish.