petrol_sniff_king

That's.. what you said, though. You're a man because you do things men do.

I don't know what your point about the fruit is.

Okay. Do you know that oranges and bananas are both "fruit."

They're actually both berries, even.

I actually wear a kilt.

How does a "biological female" present?
Do they wear dresses?
Ah yes, biological dresses.

This is a large part of why the conservatives are so angry.

Conservatives are angry because M&Ms have different boots on than they used to, I really don't care, man.

Oh, I was looking for something like this. The husband and wife example is really good.

I don't agree with this.

Then you will forever misunderstand us.

You don't identify as a man? So, if you did things that society expects of women, would you be.. a woman.. then? Look, the dispassion is admirable, I just wasn't expecting you to be so loose about it.

So what is a child's conception of a woman?

It's gonna be faces of people they know along with liberal use of the word "woman" in their presence. I mean, do you understand an orange is like a banana the very first time you see one?

Yeah, it's the anti-intellectualism that really gets me. Reeally bothers me when people refuse to concede even simple, obvious points.

It's been funny reading your branches, too.

Ah, I see the definition. "A woman is someone who presents as a woman." You're right, that's much better and much less recursive.

You are.

I wasn't asking you to agree with the definition, I was asking you to follow it through. You know, like a descriptivist.

If a woman must identify as a woman, then a person who says "I am not a woman" should not be called one. You're in the category if you want to be, you're not if you don't. Simple. Easy. Much utility. This is exactly what people in my camp use it for.

I'll point out, by the way, dictionaries provide a lot of useful context, but you cannot expect them to teach you the world. Words there depend on words for meaning. If you don't know any single word, you can't parse any of the meaning. If you don't believe me, read a French dictionary (no translations) and see if you can parse out from the words alone what anything is.

The only way to parse meaning is to match words you see to experiences you have in life. This is actually how children learn languages. No child knows "the definition," but they do know how to use the words.

Assuming the word "good" actually means "bad", then the statement is correct.

This is perfectly simple to follow. I have no idea what this is meant to prove.

You can prescribe words. You just make an argument. For instance, when you tell people the thing you made is called a "Tesla." You can also tell people your website is called "X," and if people disagree, well, they prescribe the opposite then, don't they?

I don't "naturally follow from sociological norms that the site is called Twitter" as much as I just refuse to call it the other one. I am prescribing something here.

In any case, can we say that your experiment wasn't very good

No, because you refuse to engage. You know what the correct answer is, I gave you a child's problem, you just won't say it.

If it's the former, then you should know I don't use that definition.

"Remember, language is descriptive." You only need to know how I'm using it.

So, using my "recursive" definition, is it correct or not correct to call me a woman. Is it possible to derive an answer from the information given to you.

Let's try an experiment, hm.

"I am not a woman."

Using the definition "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman," would you call me a woman.