Women's school now accepting men

[rjs330]

I don’t think they’re a religious school. Many feminists don’t like religion in general.

Yes it's a religious school still. The whole gender ideology is nothing more than a type of religion.

 

[PloverWing]

I'm a realist to the core; actually I'm a Critical Realist. If you're an "idealist" where gender language is concerned and applied in the political realm, then I agree that it's probably best we refrain from getting into a verbal fisticuff over it.

However, it surely would be a fine thing for you to share just which nuances of our disagreement seem clearer to you now. That way, it'll be more clear to me about what is clear to you. Who knows, maybe I have something to learn?

I think of the question along these lines. Person A says "Consider the set of humans with traits X, Y, and Z." Person B says "Consider the set of humans with traits Z and either W or X." Person C is interested in still another set of human traits, etc. And now A, B, and C argue about which set is more useful to consider and which set is more usefully labelled "woman". The argument is about which set to attach the vocabulary word to.

But if instead there's something essential about being a "woman", then it's meaningful to say that a particular definition "should"/"shouldn't" be used, or that a particular definition is right or wrong. From this point of view, saying "that definition is wrong" is saying more than just "that's not how most people use the word". I think.

So from this second viewpoint, it's meaningful to say things like "it's wrong for a women's college to accept thus-and-so kinds of students, because those students aren't really women", and the speaker is saying more than just "this is the set of students I want to study with". And this clarifies for me some of the earlier statements in the thread, and some of the miscommunication.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think of the question along these lines. Person A says "Consider the set of humans with traits X, Y, and Z." Person B says "Consider the set of humans with traits Z and either W or X." Person C is interested in still another set of human traits, etc. And now A, B, and C argue about which set is more useful to consider and which set is more usefully labelled "woman". The argument is about which set to attach the vocabulary word to.

But if instead there's something essential about being a "woman", then it's meaningful to say that a particular definition "should"/"shouldn't" be used, or that a particular definition is right or wrong. From this point of view, saying "that definition is wrong" is saying more than just "that's not how most people use the word". I think.

So from this second viewpoint, it's meaningful to say things like "it's wrong for a women's college to accept thus-and-so kinds of students, because those students aren't really women", and the speaker is saying more than just "this is the set of students I want to study with". And this clarifies for me some of the earlier statements in the thread, and some of the miscommunication.

Ok. That's interesting. Your approach to this topic sounds a bit Instrumentalist/Pragmatic in nature rather than Idealist, politically and even analytically speaking. I'm kind of surprised at this, but it is what it is.

Thank you for offering some brief and concise clarification about your personal praxis, PloverWing.