this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
683 points (95.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
7477 readers
2014 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is deeply confusing to me why people think they can define a word in a way that covers all it's meaning and no additional ones and make fun of those who admit they can't.
Challenge for anyone, define "to eat". Remember, you have to cover eating soup but not drinking tea, or smoothie. But obviously, that isn't everything.
It shouldn't be that confusing, considering this is literally the challenge lawmakers (honest ones, as rare as they are) face.
There's a great blog post by Neil Gaiman (despite recent revelations about his misconduct) that talks about "why we must defend icky speech".
Long story short, the law is a blunt instrument. If you cannot clearly and accurately define the terms being used in the language of the law then you wind up with a law that can be applied beyond the intended scope. Like when you write laws about freedom of religion and then wind up with The Satanic Temple erecting statues of Baphomet in court houses. Or banning the Bible from library because it contains depictions of violence and sexual deviancy or promiscuity
These issues aren't just academic. They have real-world consequences. Like, there have literally been legal rulings made based on the presence or absence of an Oxford comma
Is that kind of pedantry useful to the average conversation? No, of course not. But there are people trying to make laws that target women, or trans women, and if they can't accurately define what a woman is then the law can be used to target people they didn't want targeted.
Which is one of many reasons why trying to target trans folks with legal authority is a fool's errand
What shouldn't be confusing?
In this particular case the available words are easily found in a dictionary, and if it comes to law you can easily write about cisgender women and transgender women.
The problem is people that want the word women to not include trans women. They want to say trans women are not women, while also saying trans men aren't women, and that's why to them it is gets confusing talking about what gender is. Because once they realise they are basically saying trans people are not people, they subconsciously know they are morally wrong. And it's confusing when you think you are doing something that is morally right, while knowing (maybe only subconsciously) you're not.
Honestly, I don't know what you are trying to tell me. I am not trying to be rude, I just don't understand. But I have a point that I understood and disagree with.
Defining words isn't the "challenge" of lawmakers. Most words used in most legal systems are undefined within it and the rest are defined by words which aren't defined. E.g. the American legal system is built on that acknowledgement. That is why they work with case law. (Also I wasn't talking about defining words in a legal setting. So not sure why we talk about it like this)