🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@realcaseyrollins

My source is just logic and perhaps the dictionary.

There are 9 definitions for a woman is the dictionary. So without specifying which of those definitions i mean how can i make a statement as general as "They arent a real woman". It is non-sensical because there isnt enough information in the statement for it to make sense.. the statement could mean:

1) A person who has the DNA of a woman (sex-based definition).
2) a person who developed externally and physically as a woman (one of the gender based definition)
3) A person who presents/appears to be a woman (another gender based definition)
4) Woman kind (not applicable here due to context)
5) A female SO (regional)

and so on

So yea the statement itself just makes no sense unless you make clear what definition you use... Usually, almost always, we are talking about number 3, we generally treat people as the gender they appear to be expressing. In other wor4ds, if they are trying to look like a woman we treat them like a woman (such as the case with the old manly looking lady in a dress)

@33ARSH

Pay closer attention to my words.. I didnt say heels I said "high-heels" this particular form of heels was very much for fashion unlike shoes with raised heels more generally which had different purposes depending on the circumstances.

@realcaseyrollins

Sure I get that. but this is the one point that is such an issue as of late... No one cares if someone is a "real woman" because that is a nonsensical statement... what people care about is if you treat someone like a woman or a man (what bathroom can they use, what pronoun do you use, etc).

@realcaseyrollins

>I feel like we're getting into some pedantic territory here...I mean "believe they're a woman" in the sense that a #trans woman believes there's a woman. Whatever definition that is, that's the one I'm using

Trans people make the same mistake, they arent clear about definitions or technicalities and start a lot of needless drama. Why are we adopting that pattern?

While im not sure many trans people know what definition their using, as I said, it seems that we are mostly using the gender-based definition, which we covered.

> I mean I don't treat people differently based on their sex tbh, so I wouldn't declare anything

Well you refer to them as a he or a she, and in conversations if asked "was that a woman" you would have different answers.

So the question here is if you see an elderly lady that looks like a man who is cross dressing, but you dont actually know what sex they are, and their gender appears to be a male attempting to present the gender of a woman and you ... well do you refer to them as a woman or a man? In other words, are you categorizing the woman and the men around you based on sex (their genitals) or based on how they attempt to present (are they trying to look like a woman or a man).. or are you basing it on how they actually present (you judge them to look more like a man despite them trying to look like a woman so you call them a man)

@realcaseyrollins

The thing you are missing here is woman has 9 separate dictionary definitions.

So when you say "I am a woman" without any context makes no sense.. which definition of woman are we using...

Generally in the vast majority of conversation we mean gender, which is one of hte 9 possible definitions.

So what your asking is, can a person dressed like a woman, and who looks like a woman to someone else lopok at themselves and go "I dont think I am a woman".. or vice versa... yea, whats the point?

I mean, if there was a old lady with a moustache, she just so happened to have the sex of a woman, but she looks rather manly... you look at her and despite the fact that she is in a dress, you think overall she looks more like a man.. do youdeclare this poor old woman is a man and treat her as such until she shows you her vagina, or do you defer to her own self-image and treat her like a woman despite the fact that you have no idea what her genitals look like?

@realcaseyrollins

Sure.. perception of ones self would simply be your perceived gender.. so how you see yourself is basically saying "do you think when you look at yourself you look male or female"... the perception of others is also gender, just what gender they perceive... its all gender.

@realcaseyrollins

Im not sure what "I beleive I am a man" means.. She acted like a man, looked like a man, demanded people refer to her as a man, and people did.

Today man is split between sex (your dna) and gender (how you appear on the outside).. back then sex was related to your genitals mostly and gender was largely the same.. Unless you were talking about penises and vaginas you were talking about gender.

@realcaseyrollins

Wait what, thats literally the whole story around her.. She dressed as a man to get into the military.

@realcaseyrollins

Her entire story is her dressing like a man withe the intention of being identified and treated as a man.

@realcaseyrollins

Also we need to be clear here these are different issues, both of which are under the spotlight recently..

1) people who dress as the opposite sex but dont identify as the opposite.. these would be called cross dressed (if not entertaining) and a drag queen if they take an entertainment role.

2) Trans people who may or may not dress as the opposite sex but are int he process of adapting their gender to that sex.

This post is intending to focus on cross-dressing, not trans.

@realcaseyrollins

Huh there are tons of historic examples of people who were of one sex identifying as another sex... we have whole stories written about it.. Joan de arc is among the most famous.

@realcaseyrollins We still see the spam here...

FYI #QOTO has temporarily silenced mastodon.social until they get their spam attack under control at which point the silence will be removed.

@post At no point did they say or suggest that masks **probably** had an effectiveness close to 0.. in fact the report clearly states the opposite, that it cant draw any probable conclusions fromt he current data.

@realcaseyrollins

No not always. The high-heels was not at all common for men to wear until the king decided to wear them (cross-dressing) at which point other men began adopting it as a fashion norm, but only after.

We also have countless famous figures who cross-dressed throughout history.

@threalist

Sure they did.. cross-dressing specifically to wear styles of the opposite gender was **also** very common and not a modern invention by any means.

Sooo just a reminder:

Dresses were the norm for boys in 100+ years ago, and the color pink was a color for boys as well.

Oh yea and in the 1700s it was normal fashion for men to wear high heels.

But hey, lets make up whatever fake history we want to make gender norms sound like they have always been the same and that "cross dressing" and "drag" are somehow new inventions.

#lgbt #lgbtq

@supernovae@universeodon.com @Gargron

Agreed, Ill let you know the day Eugene shows even an inkling of admitting his mistakes and correcting them...

@supernovae@universeodon.com @Gargron

Back before QOTO diverged too far from mastodon to be feasable most of our fixes were offered as PR to mastodon... surprise surprise Eugene usually rejected them for ideological reasons and here we are.

This isnt a case of "well its open-source"... no you have a highly opinionated guy running the scene who has made highly questionable and destructive decisions on various occasions and who has stifled good contributions to the codebase at every turn (and often gets called out)... So no the fault lies with Eugene here right fromt he getgo.