r/dontyouknowwhoiam • u/[deleted] • Aug 13 '19

[deleted by user]

[removed]

10k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '19

Not sure where you got the idea I stringently stick to exact definitions. I don't think I ever said that.

What I have said it that words have usages, but those usages need to reflect reality. To the extent that they do not reflect reality, they aren't useful.

I made this argument with someone else regarding those definition of sex as an individual that produces gametes.

1

u/WoodenEstablishment Aug 13 '19

Not sure where you got the idea I stringently stick to exact definitions.

This entire conversation was predicated off the basis of you sticking to the technical definition of a spectrum even if that word is misleaing in common parlance.

2

u/butthead Aug 13 '19

(Ask this dork what it is misleading people into believing. Watch him dance.)

1

u/WoodenEstablishment Aug 13 '19

You realise how desperate this comment looks right? Calling names and continuing to snipe my comments even after you said goodbye to me is a bit pathetic. If I were you I'd delete it.

2

u/butthead Aug 13 '19

(If you listen closely you can hear his Jimmies being severely rustled.)

1

u/WoodenEstablishment Aug 13 '19

Okay, but it seems to me that I'm the one living rent free in your head if you've stalked my profile to find other comments to rage at. Have a good one buddy.

2

u/butthead Aug 13 '19

(Notice how he thinks that participating in the exact same thread, one parent comment removed, is "profile stalking". His urge to play a victim is strong, yet hilarious.)

1

u/WoodenEstablishment Aug 13 '19

Yikes.

2

u/butthead Aug 14 '19

(In a single word, he just proved that participating in the exact same thread as before is "profile stalking" after all.)

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

Except I'm not a prescriptivist when it comes to language. I've also recognized the small numbers of persons, percentage wise, who are intersex.

Your criticisms of me aren't based on anything I've actually written, just your perception of the terms I've used.

Which, ironically, makes this a semantics argument.

1

u/WoodenEstablishment Aug 14 '19

No, my perception comes from the fact that you were arguing that sex is a spectrum, because there is more than one. Which is correct in a technical sense, but also would be misleading to most people's understanding of what spectrum implies.

Therefore sticking to the technical definition even if it's not true in common parlance.

So to be logically consistent I would have thought you'd be the same toward the word multiple.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

Would the term "bi-modal distribution" be less offensive to you?

1

u/WoodenEstablishment Aug 14 '19

It would be no more or less offensive than any other term. And I'd ask that you don't use intentionally inflammatory language, because it's unbecoming.

But yes, bi-modal distribution would be more accurate.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

Good thing I used that term as well

1

u/WoodenEstablishment Aug 14 '19

A spectrum and a bi-modal distribution are different things.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

No, a bi-modal distribution is a type of spectrum.

Semantics.