Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomp | Hacker News Reader

> legitimacy of transgender women

What does this even mean? Like, how can someone not be "legitimate"? Does it mean "illegal" as in illegal alien? Is anyone claiming that trans citizens should be deported? Or does it mean "imaginary"? Trans people obviously exist.

JKRowling is simply pointing out that the word "woman", which used to have the clear and simple meaning of "female human" (or sometimes "adult female human"), was now not only redefined & politicized to basically mean "opinion" (or "a woman is someone who thinks they're a woman" which is a clearly nonsensical recursive definition) and is used for Orwellian speech control.

View on HN

> "a woman is someone who thinks they're a woman" which is a clearly nonsensical recursive definition

This is a perfectly meaningful recursive definition.

Maybe, but it appropriates the word "woman" for political purposes. Could just as easily have been "a blurb is someone who thinks they're a blurb" if the intention wasn't a sneaky subjugation of people's existing speech & thought patterns (basically a real-life "dark pattern"). That itself is reason enough to oppose it, IMO.

You could claim that the word "woman" was chosen because it represents an existing concept that some people want to approximate because of their feelings, but a more appropriate response would be to point out that these feelings are factually incorrect. Maybe it's easier to see the absurdity if you consider a non-politicized version "a tree is someone who thinks they're a tree" (laughably wrong) or differently-politicized "a Jew is someone who thinks they're a Jew" (this is somewhat less incorrect, because it's referring to a social "fact" that can change, not a physical fact).

That's how most things work though? You can't "appropriate" a word for political purposes, when the root word is political in the first place.

A conservative is someone who thinks they're a conservative, a centrist is someone who thinks they are a centrist. Other people can try to label you one way or another, but ultimately, you decide what you are. It's inherently self-referential.

> "a Jew is someone who thinks they're a Jew" (this is somewhat less incorrect)

But that's not incorrect at all, that is exactly how it works in real life. "A Christian is someone who believes they're a Christian", is a wholly true statement. Just as, "an atheist is someone who believes they are an atheist".

There's a bunch of these statements of identity that are, effectively, 100% self referential. No one can tell you who you are, ultimately you have to decide that for yourself.

> Maybe it's easier to see the absurdity if you consider a non-politicized version

It's not. Even in a non-political, meaningless context, it's 100% equally as self-referential.

Insert the "what is a sandwich" meme - https://talkthetalkpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sa...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com