Re:The moral case against equity language
by sorokod on Saturday March 04, 2023 @11:57AM
(#35022309)
Please stop calling "a woman is a person who identifies as such" a fuzzy definition. It is to definition what "alternative fact" is to a fact.
Now, you are right that for the purposes of this event no one defined what a girl or a boy is. The reason it is so (as is the case with many other social conventions) is because neither the participants nor the organizers challenge the classification.
There is no doubt that had it been challenged strongly and frequently enough, the implicit definitions would become explicit and formal.
Re:The moral case against equity language
by JumpCrisscross on Saturday March 04, 2023 @07:23PM
(#35025881)
> had it been challenged strongly and frequently enough, the implicit definitions would become explicit and formal
By people without any civics background, yes. That we lack leaders who push back against overspecification is a cultural failing, collectively, and an individual failing among those who don’t understand the point of nuance.
That it’s irrelevant to the definition of a woman. That’s the strength of fuzzy definitions.
When separating the kids, did anyone formally define what a girl or a boy is? Did every parent in that room need to resolve every edge case to their implied definitions ex ante? Could you guarantee conflict by forcing a formal definition on that group, even if it results in the same practical outcome the implied, unsaid definition yielded and which was peacefully accepted by the group? No, no and, of course, yes.