u/lmmarsano

*still not citing a single law to prove [porn is illegal][ipse-dixit]*

Im not engaging with you

Good thinking bailing now: looks like someone knows when they're beat.

It would be incredibly easy to prove me wrong if your claim were true, *yet you don't*.

Not hard to figure out why.

*I know facts don't support my argument, so [I'll evade by calling them a propagandist][ad-hominem] & hope no one notices*

You basically: just because facts are inconvenient to your argument doesn't mean it's valid to ignore them, pretend they're "propaganda", or evade with irrelevant claims.

So, cool fallacies & evasion, bro.

You're 🤡ing yourself right here.

Next time, try logic.

[ad-hominem]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[ipse-dixit]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

So if it’s prohibited by a law

Again, it's not.

Again, cite a law.

My state literally made pornhub illegal today

They did *not*.

Words mean things.

[Answered here][comment].

Cite the law: you *can't*.

please stop doing apologia and/or propaganda

Right back at you: twisting the word *illegal*.

I disapprove of the dumb online ID regulations, too: still not *illegal*.

US isn't throwing pornographers & erotica writers in jail.

China has always banned porn

You said it.

Not *banned* in USA.

You’re welcome to sleepwalk into authoritarianism

Chinese government is already there.

US still has a long way to "catch up".

They're *not*

• [sending Ughyers to reeducation camps or forced sterilizations][uyghurs]

• [organ harvesting the Falun Gong][falun-gong]

• [suppressing discussion of the times they've sent tanks against civilians][censor].

The Chinese government doesn't care about individual rights & never has: it's baked into the formula.

They always put tankie ideology first, the individual later, sometimes far later.

[comment]: https://lemmynsfw.com/comment/12570061

[uyghurs]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China

[falun-gong]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

[censor]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_China

That's not *illegalizing it* & it's not throwing erotica writers in jail.

Don't believe me?

Cite the laws.

It's *legal*.

just like in half the US

It isn't.

They should also be the most progressive

The tankie government that denies Tiananmen Square doesn't have much regard for individual rights?

Appealing to Trump's vanity to get their way wasn't a bad idea.

We all know he's narcissism incarnate.

A not-insignificant amount of women think using the term “female” is derogatory.

many anglophones disagree with you

And a nonsignificant amount *don't*.

That doesn't establish a generally accepted convention of the language community.

Language is alive - it evolves, it changes.

True: still not a conventional definition per earlier remarks.

English words are based on common usage.

Exactly: convention.

Women who feel that way are part of the “language community.”

Incomplete evidence or composition fallacy.

whose use of English is less valid than yours.

Nope, not implied & it's *not* about my use, either.

It's about observed, established convention: see earlier remarks (notice a pattern yet?).

The lack of consistency across usages indicates that derogatory meaning is not a convention.

all we’re doing is pointing out that it’s used in this way

And plenty of innocuous instances exist as discussed before.

That doesn't make a word itself derogatory:

[If a word requires a particular message to be derogatory, then the message (*not* the word) is responsible.][before]

I don't deny derogatory instances.

Do you deny nonderogatory instances?

Just because you don’t feel a derogatory sense from a given word doesn’t mean those that experience it that way are wrong.

It's simple overgeneralization: people can draw wrong conclusions about their observations, especially if they disregard conflicting observations (incomplete evidence fallacy).

Observing derogatory uses while disregarding nonderogatory uses doesn't justify *any* conclusion about a word's conventional definition.

It varies by message, so it's not the word itself.

get to the point you’re really saying, which is that women’s experiences and opinions are somehow worth less than yours.

Straw man fallacy.

Not implied.

Maybe you follow the logic I wrote, but the conclusion still *feels* wrong, so you're unwilling to accept it.

Let's unpack that feeling.

The conventional definition that the noun "female" isn't derogatory feels wrong, because sexists use that word in an ugly way, and opposing that would feel relieving.

What can we do with these feelings?

Here's one idea: even though it's not generally accepted, let's make the noun "female" an official *dirty word*.

Let's accept the premise of their sexism that "females" are lesser and take it further than they did: spread it to the broader community, normalize it into the official language so everyone accepts the noun for an entire gender is a dirty word.

The sexists might even be grateful.

Would that feel better?

If so, then extraterrestrial anthropologists studying you might reasonably conclude you're a misogynist.

Otherwise, you might want to tell your feelings "Fuck you, feelings! Stop making me do stupid shit!".

Alternatively, understand your feelings & guide them better.

[before]: https://lemmynsfw.com/comment/11451592

But we can’t pretend we’ve lived in a world of equal opportunity that treats men and women, males and females, equally

in trying to make that point.

While I agree with the first part, that is *not* implied or necessary to refute the argument *as presented*.

[They argued][presented] the same reasoning applies to "male" (literally).

It clearly doesn't.

Therefore, whatever the reasoning *could be*, their argument isn't it.

[Basic logic.][counterexample]

If a sound argument exists, we should present *that*.

Otherwise, we're pretending to reason.

[presented]: https://lemm.ee/comment/19835869

[counterexample]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample

What makes you the ultimate authority

Where do you get the power to decide

What makes your opinion about it more valid

I don't need to be or decide it and it's not my opinion: the *language community* is the *ultimate authority* of their language.

Their collective choices establish *observable conventions*.

Linguistics is dedicated to that approach.

What makes your opinion about it more valid than those of others?

Have you considered that the same word can make two different people feel two different ways?

Subjectivist fallacy: your opinion/feelings don't make claims *true*.

*Up* doesn't mean *down* because someone feels that way.

Language has conventional, established meanings.

[Another comment fully argues, explains, & criticizes your argument][argued], which I won't bother to rehash here.

[argued]: https://lemmynsfw.com/comment/11451592

I think we grasp cognitive meaning & emotive force in language.

I think we also understand the concept of *twisting words*, have likely rolled our eyes witnessing it, and generally agree that a fair, reasonable person should resist it.

The claim is the word itself is *derogatory*.

It's an argument roughly of the form:

1. Someone mentioned female humans.

2. They used the noun "female".

3. The noun "female" is derogatory.

4. Therefore, their statement (regardless of message) is derogatory.

These look like errors of reasoning: a [persuasive definition][persuasive-definition] (a definition biased in favor of a particular conclusion or point of view) and a type of straw man fallacy.

While it *can* be used in a derogatory way, that's not the general, conventional meaning.

Language isn’t always about logic.

Yet you attempt to defend the claim by a (specious) logic language doesn't follow, either.

Language does follow a standard (of sorts): *convention*.

By that standard, the claim is false.

Natural language gains conventional meaning through collective choices of the language community.

This general acceptance is reflected in responses of native speakers (not niche online opinions who don't decide for the entire language community).

If (as reported) native speakers require frequent "correction" on a word's meaning, that indicates the proposed meaning *isn't* generally accepted.

A longstanding definition (like "female" as a nonderogatory noun) holds more weight than a novel reinterpretation recognized by fewer.

If the "corrections" aren't, then what are they?

At best, a *proposed* language change—an attempt to push the idea that the noun "female" is derogatory and change the way *allies* speak.

Is it a *good* proposal?

Would defining the noun "female" as derogatory weaken sexist ideologies?

Unlikely: extremists like Andrew Tate wouldn't adjust their rhetoric because of a vocabulary.

They wouldn't need to adjust a single word.

Is it just?

Justice requires targeting wrongdoers narrowly—discrediting problematic messages, condemning extremist ideologies, promoting deradicalization.

Blanket condemnation based on a *word* punishes nonoffenders instead of actual wrongdoers.

Antagonizing nonoffending parties alienates potential allies rather than foster change.

The result?

A reductive *purity test* that challenges & penalizes allies instead of challenge wrongdoers.

That is neither right nor beneficial.

Would making the noun "female" a dysphemism suggest to society that femaleness is wrong/taboo?

That seems misguided.

Why *that* word?

The assumption appears to be that usage by sexist extremists taints the word itself as if the word is to blame for their rhetoric.

It's roughly an argument of the form

1. Sexist extremists use the noun "female".

2. Sexist extremists derogate female humans.

3. Therefore, the noun "female" is inherently derogatory: anyone who uses it derogates female humans.

First, is premise 1 true: do figures like Andrew Tate even *use* the noun "female" disproportionately?

I've only seen it among socially awkward individuals: *not* the same crowd.

More crucially, this argument is invalid: it's a genetic fallacy (guilt by association).

Thus, the proposal doesn't advance (and may *undermine*) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned: it's *not* good in any sense.

often done when discussing science or medical topics

or legal or technical or any context for impersonal abstraction.

Such language has appeared in classified ads for apartment rentals: there's even a movie about it.

Not derogatory.

Context matters.

It’s also used in situations where people are deliberately ‘othering’ people. Watch any police bodycam footage and you’ll see that cops frequently say “male/female” when discussing non-police individuals.

While US policing has serious issues, this claim seems forced: impersonal terms are standard in legal settings.

Assholes like Tate push a twist in this dynamic so that men are called men but women are called females

Recalling an earlier question: do they?

Though interesting if so, that alone doesn't make the word in general derogatory.

Nonderogatory instances are common (as you've identified).

If a word requires a particular message to be derogatory, then the message (*not* the word) is responsible.

The use of a word in a derogatory message doesn't make it derogatory.

That would require an unattainable level of purity (ie, never appear in derogatory messages) for nonderogatory words.

Your argument really shows the people who "consider it derogatory" misattribute an entire rhetoric to a word.

Final thought: humans don't need constant reassurance that they're humans to know they aren't being demeaned (unless they're painfully insecure).

tl;dr The claim that noun "female" is derogatory is false according to conventional meaning established by the language's community, corroborated by the frequent need to "correct" native speakers.

Moreover, the claim doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned.

[persuasive-definition]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition

if you say “man” and “female” instead of “male” and “female”.

That's extra cringe if they *do*: that person needs to sort out their words.

Is it *not* derogatory if they say “male” and “female”?

Notice how calling someone “a black” is kinda icky?

It's hard cringe & awkward: certain to provoke odd looks.

Referring to someone as an instance of their gender could be *icky* & *cringe*.

That it's also *derogatory* doesn't follow: the easiest counterexample is "a male".

it’s still derogatory

It logically isn't.

While you *think* that, and anyone spending their future with you should mind it, it doesn't make it *true*.

If there are factors that are keeping him celibate, they are entirely his own.

Though not *entirely*, that's no reason to become an incel, either.

No girl got to hop on anyone's D *ever*.

Is the pope even supposed to mind death?

He *holy* ghosted?

The word “means” is also used for logical entailment

*Yes* in the contexts you gave.

*No* in [this context][context]: they're referring to the ruling on the legal definition.

You think I’m defending the stupid ruling.

Where does it say that?

It's a technical discussion of a legal definition.

Defense/preference/endorsement is *not* implied.

if we’re going about precisely characterizing things

Pinning down legal definitions is what the legal system does.

No one is claiming to personally defend it.

[context]: https://lemmy.world/comment/16504065

When does it not?

A definition *identifies* the meaning of the word being defined (the [definiendum][basics]) with the meaning of the words doing the defining (the [definiens][basics]).

It declares their meanings *identical*, which implies *equivalent*, which implies *symmetric*.

The ruling makes law follow a [precising definition][basics], which imposes limitations on the conventional meaning to reduce vagueness.

[basics]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition#Basic_terminology

The guy who said he'd build a wall & Mexico would pay for it *doesn't* know why he started a trade war?

That's a shock.