Redefining happens all the time. See the example I gave above with insanity and gay people.
It's not difficult. If you define a woman as someone born with a vagina, then obviously someone born with a penis can never be a woman. If you define a woman as someone born with a certain bio-chemical make-up, then someone born with a penis can be a woman.
The language we use to define what a woman is can change, in the same way that it changed in respect of insanity and gay people. So, can someone born with a penis be a woman? That depends on the current cultural definition of woman and the use of the word within certain sections of the community. Woman is a social construct. What a woman is can change from place to place and time to time, according to the prevalent definition of woman.
It would have been quicker to say yes . You are choosing a method to make a falsehood into a ‘ truth ‘ and impose it in society . You justify it because it has been done before and is for the greater good . It’s a religious dogma.
It's a fact that language and the meaning of words change. Look at how the word gay has changed. Understanding that language is a social construct doesn't require a leap of faith. So, it's not religious dogma.
You may call him a corgi, a labrador, or a beagle; but you must not call him a dog.
It would have been quicker to say yes . You are choosing a method to make a falsehood into a ‘ truth ‘ and impose it in society . You justify it because it has been done before and is for the greater good . It’s a religious dogma.
It's a fact that language and the meaning of words change. Look at how the word gay has changed. Understanding that language is a social construct doesn't require a leap of faith. So, it's not religious dogma.
You are supporting a deliberate and specific change . Imposed to suit an agenda . Its religious dogma in action .
What a strange outlook, we know what the Communion wafer represents (or is) to those who are religious but in the real world to the rest of us and as a clear definition it is a communion wafer. Of course society can decide what a woman is and general terms that has been done by those who wish it to change, to the rest of us we all know what a woman is and who it applies to. Changing of words requires common usage to change if the word is changed without common usage then it is being manipulated. Woke is one such word, common usage is creating its rather disparaging meaning.
The last of the Platonists!
Not really as many words can be abstractions. and many things can change including words, however what is required is a common usage. A Communion wafer to the vast majority of people untouched by the C of E or Transubstantiation is a communion wafer. Its transformation is a religious belief and religious beliefs tend to rely on nothing but faith and faith cannot move mountains but it can change then from mountains to polyconglomerateparticulates if it so wishes it however remains what it always was, just as policemen are now more often called cops ( not a move I support but then that is the younger generation for you). The actuality has not changed it has just received a new label.
It's a fact that language and the meaning of words change. Look at how the word gay has changed. Understanding that language is a social construct doesn't require a leap of faith. So, it's not religious dogma.
You are supporting a deliberate change to suit an agenda . Its religious dogma in action .
No. There is a big difference between empirically verifiable fact and religious dogma. That the meaning and use of words change from place to place and time to time is empirically verifiable. Religious dogma is not empirically verifiable. It depends on faith.
You may call him a corgi, a labrador, or a beagle; but you must not call him a dog.
I did not say it was not, I said at the same time we were taught to be enquiring and asking questions was the teaching method. Thinking was the golden goose and questions were the egg. Young children can be taught all sorts of things but if one fails to teach them to think and enquire then that will be indoctrination which certainly seems to be what we currently have. We were never faulted if we asked questions about the bible readings. As a comparison as regards what we have now reference the poor girl who aired her opinion as regards a fellow pupil who identified as a cat and the actions of the teacher.
The 'poor girl' who asked questions about a cat was the class bully who was trying to make another pupil look like an idiot in front of the rest of the class. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the girl who 'identified as a cat' as she was clearly just attention seeking. But I should think the teacher's reaction to the 'poor girl' who raised the issue in class stemmed primarily from her understanding that that 'poor girl' was acting maliciously.
You have more information than I on both the poor girl, her thoughts her behaviour and her motives as you do of the teacher who, no matter his thoughts on the poor girl was duty bound to treat her as a child and one of his charges irrespective of his belief
Not really as many words can be abstractions. and many things can change including words, however what is required is a common usage. A Communion wafer to the vast majority of people untouched by the C of E or Transubstantiation is a communion wafer. Its transformation is a religious belief and religious beliefs tend to rely on nothing but faith and faith cannot move mountains but it can change then from mountains to polyconglomerateparticulates if it so wishes it however remains what it always was, just as policemen are now more often called cops ( not a move I support but then that is the younger generation for you). The actuality has not changed it has just received a new label.
We're not talking about transformations of substance. When I said that the word insanity no longer includes homosexual practices, I was not suggesting that homosexuals have changed in substance alongside the change in the meaning of the word insane.
You may call him a corgi, a labrador, or a beagle; but you must not call him a dog.
The 'poor girl' who asked questions about a cat was the class bully who was trying to make another pupil look like an idiot in front of the rest of the class. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the girl who 'identified as a cat' as she was clearly just attention seeking. But I should think the teacher's reaction to the 'poor girl' who raised the issue in class stemmed primarily from her understanding that that 'poor girl' was acting maliciously.
You have more information than I on both the poor girl, her thoughts her behaviour and her motives as you do of the teacher who, no matter his thoughts on the poor girl was duty bound to treat her as a child and one of his charges irrespective of his belief
Great!
You may call him a corgi, a labrador, or a beagle; but you must not call him a dog.
You are supporting a deliberate change to suit an agenda . Its religious dogma in action .
No. There is a big difference between empirically verifiable fact and religious dogma. That the meaning and use of words change from place to place and time to time is empirically verifiable. Religious dogma is not empirically verifiable. It depends on faith.
You support a deliberate imposition of a definition from a fact to a feeling . its no different from imposing the definition of wafer to ‘ the true flesh of Jesus ‘ when the wafer is used in communion. Its religious dogma . Not only that but the delusion would be underpinned by law and heretics would be punished . Its using the same method that the church imposed its dogma.
“A Communist system can be recognized by the fact that it spares the criminals and criminalizes the political opponent.”
Not really as many words can be abstractions. and many things can change including words, however what is required is a common usage. A Communion wafer to the vast majority of people untouched by the C of E or Transubstantiation is a communion wafer. Its transformation is a religious belief and religious beliefs tend to rely on nothing but faith and faith cannot move mountains but it can change then from mountains to polyconglomerateparticulates if it so wishes it however remains what it always was, just as policemen are now more often called cops ( not a move I support but then that is the younger generation for you). The actuality has not changed it has just received a new label.
We're not talking about transformations of substance. When I said that the word insanity no longer includes homosexual practices, I was not suggesting that homosexuals have changed in substance alongside the change in the meaning of the word insane.
We were talking about Communion wafers, or were you referring to the Body of Christ? Insanity is a broad abstract noun which can include and exclude many things and its very subjectivity means that its broad meaning has to be read in context. Homosexuals are no different but the words applied to them have changed not least illegal and legal.
No. There is a big difference between empirically verifiable fact and religious dogma. That the meaning and use of words change from place to place and time to time is empirically verifiable. Religious dogma is not empirically verifiable. It depends on faith.
You support a deliberate imposition of a definition from a fact to a feeling . its no different from imposing the definition of wafer to ‘ the true flesh of Jesus ‘ when the wafer is used in communion. Its religious dogma . Not only that but the delusion would be underpinned by law and heretics would be punished . Its using the same method that the church imposed its dogma.
It's a fact that someone born with a penis can be a woman in a society or group of people if that person meets that society or group's definition of woman. Platonism died a long time ago, Bentley. There is no Platonic woman.
You may call him a corgi, a labrador, or a beagle; but you must not call him a dog.
We're not talking about transformations of substance. When I said that the word insanity no longer includes homosexual practices, I was not suggesting that homosexuals have changed in substance alongside the change in the meaning of the word insane.
We were talking about Communion wafers, or were you referring to the Body of Christ? Insanity is a broad abstract noun which can include and exclude many things and its very subjectivity means that its broad meaning has to be read in context. Homosexuals are no different but the words applied to them have changed not least illegal and legal.
Great! We both agree that definitions change, then. In a society or group that defines woman not according to the genitalia they were born with, but according to their bio-chemical make-up, someone born with a penis can be a woman. It's not rocket science.
You may call him a corgi, a labrador, or a beagle; but you must not call him a dog.
You support a deliberate imposition of a definition from a fact to a feeling . its no different from imposing the definition of wafer to ‘ the true flesh of Jesus ‘ when the wafer is used in communion. Its religious dogma . Not only that but the delusion would be underpinned by law and heretics would be punished . Its using the same method that the church imposed its dogma.
It's a fact that someone born with a penis can be a woman in a society or group of people if that person meets that society or group's definition of woman. Platonism died a long time ago, Bentley. There is no Platonic woman.
You support a biological man to be redefined as a woman when they clearly are not . You support the definition imposed by authority and the act disbelieving to be illegal . Its a religious dogma Darling . Its the imposition of a definition that is clearly false imposed on to society .
“A Communist system can be recognized by the fact that it spares the criminals and criminalizes the political opponent.”
It's a fact that someone born with a penis can be a woman in a society or group of people if that person meets that society or group's definition of woman. Platonism died a long time ago, Bentley. There is no Platonic woman.
You support a biological man to be redefined as a woman when they clearly are not . You support the definition imposed by authority and the act disbelieving to be illegal . Its a religious dogma Darling . Its the imposition of a definition that is clearly false imposed on to society .
No, it's not religious dogma, for the reasons I've outlined.
Maybe, you'll bring Platonism back. It was very big up to the middle-ages. There's no reason why you shouldn't spearhead its re-emergence.
You may call him a corgi, a labrador, or a beagle; but you must not call him a dog.
We were talking about Communion wafers, or were you referring to the Body of Christ? Insanity is a broad abstract noun which can include and exclude many things and its very subjectivity means that its broad meaning has to be read in context. Homosexuals are no different but the words applied to them have changed not least illegal and legal.
Great! We both agree that definitions change, then. In a society or group that defines woman not according to the genitalia they were born with, but according to their bio-chemical make-up, someone born with a penis can be a woman. It's not rocket science.
I do not disagree but I said that common usage has to be medium of change. Law can be the medium in terms of homosexuality and illegal and legal so a law changed changed the common usage indirectly. But if law mandates that a word has to have a certain meaning we are in dangerous waters, the law has to define what words mean in law but it cannot and should not enforce a change in use or meaning onto the public. Misgendering is a rip tide waiting in the wings and takes away one of the classic jokes when one asks a man, did you think that when you were a wee lassie.
Great! We both agree that definitions change, then. In a society or group that defines woman not according to the genitalia they were born with, but according to their bio-chemical make-up, someone born with a penis can be a woman. It's not rocket science.
I do not disagree but I said that common usage has to be medium of change. Law can be the medium in terms of homosexuality and illegal and legal so a law changed changed the common usage indirectly. But if law mandates that a word has to have a certain meaning we are in dangerous waters, the law has to define what words mean in law but it cannot and should not enforce a change in use or meaning onto the public. Misgendering is a rip tide waiting in the wings and takes away one of the classic jokes when one asks a man, did you think that when you were a wee lassie.
I don't favour laws that require people to gender anyone in a particular way. It's a matter of simple courtesy.
You may call him a corgi, a labrador, or a beagle; but you must not call him a dog.