| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Dave Schuler writes:
> > >
> > > I think that unless we can find a specific point at which Shiri is not a
> > > man, then we cannot demonstrate conclusively that she is a woman. Either
> > > Shiri occupies a spectrum of man-ness and woman-ness with no distinction, or
> > > a distinction exists, even if we can't define it precisely. DaveE and I
> > > have been bandying around exactly this sort of thing for days.
> >
> > Obviously according to our preset definitions, one would grade according to
> > a sexual scale, rather than percentages of spectrum occupation.
> > snippo
> > Hence, quite clearly, we're *all* female.
> >
> > And of course, this very neatly solves all our problems, since Shiri's
> > initial debate question was "Is this sexist?". Now that we're all women, it
> > is quite clearly no longer an issue.
>
> Look, er that is, listen... *I* could tell you the specific point at which
> women are not men, and exactly where it is located. But this being a family
> forum I have no intention of doing so, thankyouverymuch.
Not to push the point, I'd say there _is_ a gradient between "female" and
"male". As always, the exceptional cases demonstrate the fluid boundaries of the
majority. Take homosexuals, transexuals and hermaphrodites. Or heterosexual
nancy-boys or macho women. I don't think the differences are as utterly obvious
as they first seem.
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) Any theorem fails if taken to its logical extreme, eh? (...) Look, er that is, listen... *I* could tell you the specific point at which women are not men, and exactly where it is located. But this being a family forum I have no intention of (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
