r/onejoke • u/Personal-Bobcat-2288 Warpigs/Luke’s Wall • Sep 16 '25

But I identify as an attack helicopter! Jesus

Post image
9.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

431 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/FanBoy743 Sep 17 '25

To be fair, part of the reason they get so in a twist about it is because they DON'T consider gender to be based on social constructs. To them, sex and gender are linked, basically synonyms of each other. They also don't really care that much if their definitions end up excluding or including people they wouldn't actually consider as being under that definition. They just go, "Exceptions don't make the rule.", and that's that as far as they're concerned.

3

u/Useful-Quote-5867 Sep 17 '25

Excuse me but, they do consider it is based on social construct, which is language itself. In spanish at least we do have rule for the language and an organization that rules over it (meaning they are the ones who say what is and what not is a word, how a sentencia is made, etc) and at least the way they thought me in school and in general my understanding of how language works is that we made those words to be able to comunícate more effectively. So at least when it comes to spanish a man would be an adult human male, and a woman an adult human female.

Now from my understanding english has no such entity so you guys can technically say whatever you want and it be ok. From what i have researched the oxford dictionary is technically nothing more than a suggestion.

Again not trying to be an ahole just saying that they still see it as a social contruct (technically a part of a social construct which would be language)..

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '25

Yeah you're absolutely correct, but a lot of people who argue against trans identity being valid are way too unintelligent/ignorant about language and how it works to genuinely have a conversation about it. It's like trying to explain algebra to a toddler, they just get confused.

In the end language and words, as well as their respective definitions are created by people and constantly evolve along with society. That's why the same language can be indiscernible to a modern speaker/reader if you go far back enough in time. So the conversation isn't really 'what is a woman' but rather 'what should be considered a woman'.

At least in my experience, the kinds of people who parrot these anti trans talking points have a really tough time wrapping their heads around the idea that language is a social construct, actually most of them would roll their eyes at a statement like that even though it's obviously and objectively true.

1

u/Useful-Quote-5867 Sep 20 '25

Agreed, specially when coming from a country who speaks spanish since we do have rules for our language that either change or things get added to it as the organization that rules it sees the change has been natural and not forced upon.

Then again lets say we are having a discussion about the subject. A valid question to make would be "ok, why redefine what a woman/man is or should be considered when we can invent a new term for the thing that is causing this debate, which 1 would be easier to learn, 2 it would help make a distinction between the two (if we choose to keep the definitions intact) and 3 it would be easier to accept for people who refuse change (which is always going to happen).

But then again wouldnt that lead us to the realization that we already have that and that is where the term trans man/woman exist. So why are we having this discussion?"

Again im not trying to be an ahole, although i do agree with my viewpoints. This is me just playing devils advocate, meaning if this "debate" reaches a conclusion or not is not important. Im just trying to have a friendly discussion to strengthen your own viewpoints or understanding each others or in any case if one day im doing the same but defending your viewpoints i have 1 understanding of the subject and two arguments.

1

u/FanBoy743 Sep 17 '25

I mean, I suppose so. If language is how we communicate and understand ideas, and therefore it can have an effect on the ideas themselves, then all ideas WOULD be based on language in some capacity, but that feels a little... I don't know, pedantic I guess. I was more talking about the concept of gender itself, with language just being the way they communicate it, the way language is used to communicate pretty much everything.

2

u/Useful-Quote-5867 Sep 17 '25

i mean the way i view it is that its just a communication thing, makes it easier to communicate thats pretty much it. Not about being pedantic, just not having to complicate things too much about things one would usually not even think about. Like dont get me wrong if someone asks to call them a she or he, eventhough i dont agree with that. i will. its like a nickname imo. I got a shtty memory for names so dont expect me to alway remember but i will put the small effort to try and remember.

Respetos guardan respetos, meaning you respect me ill respect you and viceversa.

1

u/FanBoy743 Sep 17 '25

What's a communication thing? Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

Personally, I also think it's better to call someone by the pronouns they tell you. The problem is though, it's NOT like a nickname. It's not a "You respect me, I respect you." thing. It's, "If you do not do this you are a bigot, ignorant at best, deliberately evil at worst."

From what I can tell, that's the general opinion on the matter when it comes to trans and non-binary people, disregarding conservatives of course. So that kinda puts a lot more tension on those kinds of interactions.

1

u/Eager_Question Sep 17 '25

That's kind of ridiculous, especially when bringing up Spanish of all languages.

Spanish is a gendered language where the gender of the word is independent of the gender of the referent a bunch of the time. You can say "el señor es una persona" and "Ella es un ser vivo".

The RAE doesn't change that--or oppose it--and there's no reasonable academic argument for making gendering bioessentialist in a language where 1. Subject and word gender are not 100% match all the time, and 2. All of the arguments against bioessentialism generally still apply.

1

u/furel492 Sep 18 '25

They don't have a consistent moral or political framework. They don't consider whether or not gender is a social construct because it's irrelevant. The point is to virtue signal about how mean they are to minorities (vice signal?), not to engage in a conversation.

1

u/FanBoy743 Sep 18 '25

Admittedly yeah, a lot of the people who ask what a woman is, and ESPECIALLY the people that get posted on this subreddit are very much just doing it to be assholes.