-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
The truth of these times is that no public person will go on record answering this question: " what is a woman?
That's because it is a really stupid question that aims solely to wind up people's emotions about others, provide ammo to attack the person that answers the question, and succeeds.
The question 'what is a man?' is equally as stupid
Are either a relevant question?
Absolutely is a stupid question. Also true that there are consequences for many people that answer it, which is even more stupid.
-
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan I was agreeing with you via sarcasm, but we don't really have a sarcasm indicator, so I obviously failed miserably.
Sorry, missed that completely.
I think Godder has to raise his emoji game
-
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
The truth of these times is that no public person will go on record answering this question: " what is a woman?
That's because it is a really stupid question that aims solely to wind up people's emotions about others, provide ammo to attack the person that answers the question, and succeeds.
The question 'what is a man?' is equally as stupid
Are either a relevant question?
Stupid question?
Who, exactly, has made it ammo to attack? What's so difficult about answering it? Whose version of the answer?
Why can't Cindy answer that honestly to the electorate?
Let the electorate decide. Lets find out definitively what NZers really think about identity politics, then fair dues to the winner. A mandate to proceed. This is now a vital election, let's know about the person at the helm of a lilting ship.
Or should we censor the question lest the answer be analysed by voters?What is a human? Equally stupid?
What's your answer to what is a woman?
Mine involves chromosomes, reproductive capabilities and immutable characteristics.
my counter.
What does it matter?
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
The truth of these times is that no public person will go on record answering this question: " what is a woman?
That's because it is a really stupid question that aims solely to wind up people's emotions about others, provide ammo to attack the person that answers the question, and succeeds.
The question 'what is a man?' is equally as stupid
Are either a relevant question?
Stupid question?
Who, exactly, has made it ammo to attack? What's so difficult about answering it? Whose version of the answer?
Why can't Cindy answer that honestly to the electorate?
Let the electorate decide. Lets find out definitively what NZers really think about identity politics, then fair dues to the winner. A mandate to proceed. This is now a vital election, let's know about the person at the helm of a lilting ship.
Or should we censor the question lest the answer be analysed by voters?What is a human? Equally stupid?
What's your answer to what is a woman?
Mine involves chromosomes, reproductive capabilities and immutable characteristics.
my counter.
What does it matter?
Funny how people get their knickers in a twist about this. I would give the question the treatment it deserves, and ignore it. I'm not sure the majority of the electorate think about let alone have any sort of strong opinion about identity politics. It's just that those on telly and in the media give more of a shit about it than the rest of us put together
-
It matters when things like the Hate Speech legisliation are coming. If Cindy believes anyone can be a woman, and enshrines that in law then we have a problem, right?
The sport issues have been well documented, with woman's sport being turned into a farce even in NZ.
It's worth having the conversation now so we can agree on what extreme politics we want to keep out of law.
-
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
The truth of these times is that no public person will go on record answering this question: " what is a woman?
That's because it is a really stupid question that aims solely to wind up people's emotions about others, provide ammo to attack the person that answers the question, and succeeds.
The question 'what is a man?' is equally as stupid
Are either a relevant question?
Stupid question?
Who, exactly, has made it ammo to attack? What's so difficult about answering it? Whose version of the answer?
Why can't Cindy answer that honestly to the electorate?
Let the electorate decide. Lets find out definitively what NZers really think about identity politics, then fair dues to the winner. A mandate to proceed. This is now a vital election, let's know about the person at the helm of a lilting ship.
Or should we censor the question lest the answer be analysed by voters?What is a human? Equally stupid?
What's your answer to what is a woman?
Mine involves chromosomes, reproductive capabilities and immutable characteristics.
my counter.
What does it matter?
Funny how people get their knickers in a twist about this. I would give the question the treatment it deserves, and ignore it. I'm not sure the majority of the electorate think about let alone have any sort of strong opinion about identity politics. It's just that those on telly and in the media give more of a shit about it than the rest of us put together
It is purposely a question to draw someone into a pointless debate to try and either score points or entice them into a tangle trying to not allow points to be scored. If they refuse to answer then it is another reason to criticise them.
Just plainly a stupid and pointless question. A skilled interrogator could make anyone look foolish by asking them 'What is the colour green?'
It befuddles me also, why some get their knickers in a twist over this. Is it because they are looking for an answer that pigeonholes an attitude? Do they feel the need to be defined themselves by association?
Personally I don't give a shit if someone defines themselves a a man/woman/dog/alien from Mars. If they are a good person, they are a good person. If not, then they aren't.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@Siam I'm pretty certain you don't think Cindy's a siren - so why is our ship singing, diddling or jiggling?
Hahaha. Bless you mate🤣. Kudos. Shit. Listing then?
My tepid metaphor blown out of the water. Fair dues👍 -
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
It matters when things like the Hate Speech legisliation are coming. If Cindy believes anyone can be a woman, and enshrines that in law then we have a problem, right?
The sport issues have been well documented, with woman's sport being turned into a farce even in NZ.
It's worth having the conversation now so we can agree on what extreme politics we want to keep out of law.
100% this.
A while back we seemed to get to a point where we would differentiate between gender - how one identifies - and sex, the biological factors that determine whether you are male or female, which made perfect sense. Amazingly those lines are now being blurred, and we have biological males making a farce of women's sports for example.
I think it's a pretty important topic that I'd like people in government to provide some clarity around to ensure our laws are appropriate - we treat males and females differently under the law for a good reason.
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
It matters when things like the Hate Speech legisliation are coming. If Cindy believes anyone can be a woman, and enshrines that in law then we have a problem, right?
The sport issues have been well documented, with woman's sport being turned into a farce even in NZ.
It's worth having the conversation now so we can agree on what extreme politics we want to keep out of law.
IMO the discussion is more around practical application in areas such as sport. Whether organisations are allowed to define eligibility without having to resort to some chromosome terminology.
True that this requires a little give and take on all sides but this is just language evolution and usage. The problem is quite minor when you boil it down, just complicated to solve.This is a women's sport.
"I'm a woman", can I play?
"No you aren't"
"That hurts me"Do we now say 'XX' and 'XY' competitions? I don't know? It sounds silly to my old ears but in the scheme of things it is no big deal what you call something.
As for 'Hate Speech', absolutely we need a debate on where to draw the line. If something has a high propensity to cause mental harm or continue a stereotype that has quantifiable effect on a person then it should be looked at. Define that line then adjusting and applying it over time is tricky but you can't pay lip-service to things like youth suicide and mental health and allow free verbal 'attacks' on people at the same time.
We are an evolving society. I get the desire not to head off full tilt down a path but not the one to not head down the path in the first place. -
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
-
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
It's not a strawman, the answer tells the voters if the politican has common sense or not, and if they hold extreme opinions that most of us disagree with.
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
I think you're right about that.
But it'll need to be comprehensively resolved before it forms the basis of laws.
That's the "knickers in a twist" part -
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
It's not a strawman, the answer tells the voters if the politican has common sense or not, and if they hold extreme opinions that most of us disagree with.
It is a word. How can you decide whether a politician has common sense based on their definition of a word unless you are measuring them by your own defintion?
The question isn't always a strwman but often is. It is used to draw politicians into a much larger gender definition debate.
The alternative to a simple answer is not always an extreme. That is a very bi-polar idea.Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
A vagina, does it for me (yes I know).
A better question might be - "do you believe in a superior being that watches over all of us?"
Then we all form our opinions about the politician. Positive or negative.
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
It's not a strawman, the answer tells the voters if the politican has common sense or not, and if they hold extreme opinions that most of us disagree with.
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
The one that forms the basis for subsequent gender laws.
-
Isn't there another thread for this discussion?
But, since it is here, I think very very few interviewers or media outlets are going to allow a politician to be a real person and answer this with the level of humanism that doesn't get edited down to 'X says ___', and since most ppl are getting their news filtered through social media or news commentators (are there any reporters left?) then I can see why politicians want to avoid it.
Woman looks pretty easy: adult human female [female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes].
However once we ask that with 'be' [i.e., what is a woman?], things get a bit trickier as 'be' refers to having the state, quality, identity, nature, role, etc., specified.
As a result, some people argue that when we talk about 'woman' we could and should extend the idea beyond 'state' to include 'identify', and in most cases in everyday life that works pretty well. If you've got a dick but live as a woman, I couldn't really give a shit and I don't think many ppl who you'd want to have a beer with actually do.
But, if you've got a dick and want to compete as a woman, then we get into a different discussion, because of the genetical differences between male and female bodies, which make human male bodies much bigger and stronger, with greater bone density etc etc.
With respect to the current discussion, my position is that some ppl who identify as woman, but are not genetically female, have knowingly pushed the boat out too far, creating a situation where ppl have to choose sides on this issue, making them victims as their rights are being infringed upon. That creates a backlash that wasn't required - if people love sport, they'd love sport.
As a result, some institutions, such as the IOC, have jumped ahead of the science (IMO) and made decisions that have big consequences on the participation and rigor of sport for genetic females. That needs changing.
Edit: Governments are in the same boat too, and should use definitions based on the scientific understanding of 'female' (i.e., sex). Of course, then we could get into arguments about being intersex etc etc, which brings us back to the argument that identification is better.
How much have I typed so far? And how much more could I type? And, what news organization won't try to twist that around to suit their needs? I won't even be surprised if a few posters try it too.
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
A vagina, does it for me (yes I know).
A better question might be - "do you believe in a superior being that watches over all of us?"
Then we all form our opinions about the politician. Positive or negative.
I'm more relaxed about what people believe frankly. The issue starts when people start trying to push their ideology on us through law.
As for the 'hate speech' discussion, that really concerns me. There are short term benefits to suppressing speech you don't like, but the issue of defining it on 'offense' is absolutely fraught. I am offended by restriction on speech, so how does that work? Who decides what can be said, and what can't?
The other issue is suppressing speech doesn't kill it, it just drives it underground. The threshold for preventing freedom of expression (no matter how offensive that is) must be very high, and I worry that we're starting to erode that in our society,a nd erode it quickly. Don Brash, no matter your thoughts on his political views, was a mainstream politician who led a party that attracted 39% of the vote (compared to 41% Labour). To have him prevented from presenting at a University campus politics seminar makes my head explode.
We should go down the path of restricting speech very very cautiously. Freedom is easily lost, and hard to win back, and as always, those in charge can change rapidly.
NZ Politics