Trans people need to adapt to our norms, just like gypsies, lefthanders, midgets, Muslims and everyone else does.
They can be themselves, but either they have to work with and around our norms instead of trying to bulldoze them, or they can find their own planet.
Academia, the politicians, megacorps, media and entertainment industry need to adapt to our norms too, they’re the ones pushing trans on us.
If they want their own Olympics, they should fund it themselves, not with our tax.
Trans people need to compete with other members of their biological sex, or they shouldn’t compete.
Transwomen who compete against women are cowards.
Good point.
This is not an isolated issue, it’s just one part of a systemic push in large part by the elite towards a more artificial world.
If it’s not the denaturing of sex and gender, it’s the denaturing of food and drugs.
If it’s not Ai and cybernetics, it’s genetic and geoengineering.
I’m not anti-tech but nor am I anti-nature, and 9 times out of 10 nature is fine as is.
I think we need to be a lot more apprehensive about the kinds of tech we embrace, in part because a lot of the time it’s being weaponized against us under different guises.
The thing is, for me, that my worldview even includes the possibility of transcracialism. But I don’t think anyone should be put in the position of having to accept that other person’s view. IOW we are talking about something that is magical, if real. Something well beyond most paradigms. Doesn’t mean it is false, but it means that when dealing with most people, t hey simply cannot expect other people to go along. For example the 12 years who feels like an adult, cannot expect people to allow him to get a driver’s licence or buy a gun. The adult who thinks he is a child cannot expect to not get charged as an adult in court or to attend the third grade.
fine, if you think that, confess to your close friends, allow the idea to make you feel right in relaiton to yourself in the way syou can. But since we have no way to confirm this you cannot expect society to conform to the idea and your beef is with God or whatever forces led to this problematic situation. As I have said earlier I do think there is an extremely small group who actually are transpersons. I know you disagree with this, Wendy, but we share concerns that this phenomenon is so blown out of proportion and includes self-contradictory indoctrination, that is badly affecting lots of children who are not trans.
Whether they are right with themselves? It’s not their issue, it’s our issue because they cannot be right with themselves alone. We have to support the delusion, whatever it may be, so they can pretend to be right. It’s pretend if we have to support it to make it true.
Calling masculine biowomen men so we can call feminine transwomen women, would be one of the consequences of defining sex according to what attributes are salient, as Carleas suggests we do, while giving little-no consideration to their feelings or what they take offence to, as I suggest we do, for the sake of consistency and objectivity.
It’s a rather subjective way of defining things, as what’s salient for one person or in one situation, might not be what’s salient for another person or in another situation.
So basically it boils down to how situationally masculine/feminine people are, rather than biology.
We’ll be offending one group more to offend another less.
Likewise feminine biowomen (the majority of women) will be called women and masculine transwomen men (arguably the majority of transwomen).
I think the shift from more rigid roles for men and women to more relaxed roles occurred less for ideological reasons and more because improvements in abortive and contraceptive techniques meant women were having less kids, partly freeing them from their traditional role as homemaker.
Technologies like the dishwasher, vacuum cleaner and washing machine made homework a lot easier, further freeing them.
Of course the megacorps took note of this, they didn’t want women to have all this free time on their hands, consequently they rigged the economy to make it even worse for the lower classes than it already was, so women had to slave away in factories and offices for the upper classes to support increasingly smaller families too.
Gradually jobs became less physically demanding and women could take them more.
While men and women tend to have different strengths, weakness and proclivities, as humans we also tend to have similar ones.
There’re plenty of exceptions to these rules, and our strengths and weaknesses are less relevant in a more technologically advanced world where we’re not having as many kids. So while I don’t think roles for men and women should be abolished altogether and our natural differences denied, I do think the relaxing of these roles was necessary, in no small part because the megacorps made it that way.
Right, and it’s much harder to fit a somewhat feminine man in the woman box, because biology, surgery, steroids and all that, than it is to fit him in the man box, so if anything we should be encouraging him to either fit himself more in the man box, or just leave him as is, as a man but possibly with more feminine traits than most men have.
Mad Man, I think we are actually not that far apart on this, placing different emphasis on very similar views.
And I will say that if there was good reason to believe that acquiescing to someone’s expressed social sexual identity was harmful for them, whether in general or in the case of a specific individual, I would endorse a different course of action. I don’t think we have good reason to think any alternative treatment is better.
I think social nicety is a fair standard, but to complicate things: people get fired for being rude to customers and coworkers, should they be subject to firing for refusing to refer to a transman as a man?
Now, I don’t think the actual social discussion around transexuality is anything like “social nicety”. People who refuse to recognize a person’s preferred social sex aren’t called rude, they’re called bigoted, and people want that called a hate crime on par with cross burning. But I wonder if you would support treating it as rude, together with all the social consequences that rudeness can entail.
I think my argument here goes much farther, but I am beginning to think that all that’s really necessary is a social norm that misgendering is rude in the same way that publicly acknowledging that someone is ugly is rude (though it’s a bit complicated by the fact that, unlike for beauty, sex distinctions are built into the language).
I basically agree with this, though I do wish there were a gender neutral pronoun in English, and to that end I fully endorse the singular use of “them” or “they” in general.
I also think there’s a weaker ‘nicety’ standard that would say that, where accommodating sincere requests like these is easy, we should do it. There are actually people who are intersex or asexual, and if a little effort in speech will avoid significant discomfort, we should opt to share the burden of their condition. Because it’s unusual and requires effort, we should weigh accusation of rudeness against other explanations that don’t appeal to malice.
To return to my stronger position, I think there is a significant difference between the concept of “female” as it is applied to ships and the concept as it is applied to Siri, and certainly “male” as applied to Data. I don’t think the “poetic” vs. “literal” distinction is a binary; ships are “she” in the most poetic sense, Siri is “she” is a less poetic sense, Data is “he” in a fairly literal sense. One way to show this is universality: ships aren’t universally female, that is specific to English; Siri might sometimes be called ‘it’, but never ‘he’ (unless we change to the “male” voice), and Data is rarely if ever called ‘it’. That seems intuitive, and meaningful.
Agreed…
I don’t know what it’s like to feel trapped in the wrong body… that sounds terrifying to me
If the only medicine we have right now for that condition is a heavy dose of delusion… then maybe that’s what we should do while we search for a better option.
I would liken this to giving someone morphine to dull the pain… and similarly I would be very weary of just casually handing it out to anyone who cares to ask for it.
Yet I have the impression that you believe it to be a far more harmless exercise, more akin to handing out tic tacs…
We’re not there yet… this is supper muddy, in part due to people who would parrot some of the ideas you have forwarded here.
There is a subculture right now that believes gender is social and so it can and should be whatever you want it to be, whenever you want it to be…
I don’t think we should treat it as an expected norm, but as a kindness… it’s a special treatment.
Like holding a door open for someone… it’s a kindness to do it, but it’s not exactly rude NOT to do it.
It gets progressively worse NOT to do it, as the other person’s NEED for that assistance grows… so NOT holding a door for someone who is carrying a lot of stuff and has to juggle to get their hand free is worse.
NOT holding the door for Stephen Hawking might even approach “rude”.
But this is all contingent on you being aware of their need…
Yet in our world too many people are competing in the oppression olympics and fighting in the snowflake wars for us to be able to tell who’s faking it and who’s not…
In a world where it is “hip” to ride around in wheelchairs, you can’t easily tell who you ought to hold the door open for and who is just being a dick.
Yeah I get that… but that’s just how you would like to use language.
Arguing over semantics is pointless… but allow me to make an appeal to practicality here.
Why words like man, woman, female, male, associated pronouns and gender in general SHOULD only be applied to biological creatures LITERALLY.
If you’re being figurative or metaphorical, that’s a different story…
It’s no accident we have words for only two genders and not 4 or 5…
Words like “male” or “female” were invented and used to address the biological sexes that our species and most other species we saw around us required for procreation.
We knew very little about this phenomenon at first, but we have a much richer and more precise understanding of what these genders are, that they are rooted in biology and what that means…
And it’s growing richer and more precise every day.
I don’t much feel like going back to the ignorant stone age version where we have to guesstimate based off superficial appearances, peepees and/or vagaigais to determine what gender a creature is.
If that’s what you want to do, you’re welcome to it brother… but I’m happy where we are.
Now you can argue that Data is “literally” a male till you are blue in the face… but that’s just semantics, it means you define “male” such that Data fits the mold.
I am saying we wouldn’t need a word like “male” if there was only one biological sex… if all creatures known to us were hermaphrodites or asexual, say.
We would no more need to invent a gender to describe Data, than we currently need to invent a new gender to describe a hair dryer…
But if we came across klingons… we would need to address the fact that their procreation and biology depends on producing two distinct genders in their species…
We would need words for those genders and that’s when we’d need words like male and female to reference that fact.
Edit:
Now we can agree to redefine “male” such that Data qualifies and redefine gender to be a social treatment… it’s our language we can do what we want.
But then I’m left wanting unambiguous words for each biological sex… care to invent them?
And once invented and injected into the language… Do you think we could use those words to describe transexuals without it being upsetting?
Do you think perhaps we might make use of poetic or figurative license to use those words to describe dolls, objects or even androids made to look or sound like a typical members of one such sex?
Do you think perhaps one day, due to this license… you might want to change the definition of those words too, like you want to do now?
Necessitating yet another pair of words be invented, so that we may repeat this endless cycle that’s beginning to form…
I don’t think there is a norm against pointing out someone is ugly, or strange, or off, or not ‘professional’ or too emotional or any of a number of norm controlling behavior patterns. In many subcultures but not all directly saying someone is ugly si problematic, but in all you can say to everyone else htey are pretty and be silent with that one person. There are thousands of ways of implying it. And one can say it behind people’s backs, which might even be worse. Shouldn’t it be that one not gender at all.
But then the parallel is off, since ugly is a bad thing to be, but being a man or a woman should not be bad. The beef it seems to me is DNA or God or both. If you don’t seem to be a man, and someone calls you a woman, well, that isn’t necessarily their fault.
Men who wear drag are men. If you think someone has made an effort to look like a woman over what seems like a male base and you call them women, you will misgender men in drag. Or butch women men, the same type of problem.
Gender doesn’t matter, biological sex doesn’t matter, but it’s rude to misgender.
So, then we go to intentionally misgendering, which would mean you know how they want to be taken, but you continue anyway. Of course, you do not think you are misgendering, but that is different than the mistake, which God or DNA is responsible for.
I call people what they want. Though I don’t think I would call a white person black if they feel their soul is black. Because that act on my part involves other people, not just the person I am labelling. It says something, in a sense, to blacks. Get the blacks to agree and get back to me.
But why are these so different?
I am so glad people are generally not dragged around behind pickups for not seeming right for their gender. Or for their race. At least, must less.
We wanna get people to think and talk right, while democracy is going down the tubes? for example.
I agree, but this is a consequence of what Carleas proposes.
If we define sex according to salient mannishness/womanliness (as you would have us do), In the arena, bathroom, bedroom, doctor’s office, at physical jobs and in romantic relationships, where biology supposedly becomes more salient, it would make sense to refer to people by their biological sex, whereas at nonphysical jobs and in platonic relationships, where sociology, if you will, supposedly becomes more salient, it would make sense to refer to people by their social sex.
When wearing a dress and makeup a transwoman may appear womanish, so we would call her a woman, but when not wearing a dress and makeup they may appear manly, so we would call him a man.
If their social sex is partly or fully an act, on days they’re behaving ladylike, it would make sense to call her one, but on days they’re behaving manlike, it would make sense to call him one.
They may have mannish/womanly mood swings, so during their womanly moods, we’d call her a woman, and during their mannish, a man.
However, all that being said, the truth of the matter is, biology is always more-less salient, even at nonphysical jobs and in platonic relationships, no matter how much you try to cover it up with clothes, makeup, steroids and surgery, all thing which should define sex least, because they’re not innate to the person.
Biological sex in large part determines social sex, how we look underneath all the cosmetics and how we interact with other people and the world.
Altho the science is in its early stages, it’s demonstrating at best transwomen have androgynous brains and at worst mannish brains, so at best they’ll interact with other people, themselves for that matter and the world androgynously and at worst mannishly.
And underneath the cosmetics, at their very, very best, they have androgynous phenotypes and bodies, and at worst, mannish phenotypes and bodies.
Women look and behave differently than men, in platonic relationships and even at nonphysical jobs, and we treat them differently.
They bring a different approach, aura and energy to the workplace than do men.
Just as women can’t compete with men in sports because there’s a fundamental biological difference, men can’t compete with women at being womanly because there’s a fundamental biological difference.
Beneath all the externalities, the vast majority of women look and behave more womanly than both men, and transwomen, and while there may be a few exceptions, those biological women who look mannish, if they put as much effort into looking and behaving womanly as transwomen do, they could probably surpass them too.
But if there’s a bowl of organic fruit beside the bowl of plastic fruit, I’d ask you which apple, the fake one or the real one?
I’m not sure about Mad Man, I haven’t been closely following him, but if that were the case, I wouldn’t even acknowledge men can be authentically, genuinely, even naturally feminine in many ways, and women masculine.
It’s not that men are wholly masculine and women feminine, it’s that they’re fundamentally or predominantly masculine and feminine respectively, trans or no trans.
Progressives grossly exaggerate how much you can trans.
I’m a nominalist, not a Platonist.
An ape may be able to ape men, but he’s still an ape.
I appreciate that you’ve taken a nuanced position between two extremes.
I think I have too, but I’m more center-right on this, whereas you’re more center-left…or a dualist, because you think the social can be totally separated from the biological in most circumstances, whereas I don’t.
Part of being a woman means shared experiences.
Transwomen are never going to know what it’s like to have real tits and a vag.
They’re never going to know what it’s like to have a period or go through menopause, or life with the possibility of becoming pregnant.
They’ll never know what it’s like to be both vulnerable, and attractive to men by default, not by choice.
Never know what it’s like to be subject to the exact same hormonal influences women are subject to, try as they may to replicate them, live in the exact same bodies, feel and think the exact same way.
These experiences, or lack thereof, shape their social role.
Their life experiences are not the life experiences of women, they’re the life experiences of (androgynous) men.
Consequently they’ll never be able to relate to women, or men the way real women do.
You can’t separate the social world from the biological, in the cut and dry way progressives think you can.
Mannish women who still identify as women and transwomen aren’t the same thing either, they’re very, very different.
A side point, I hate the term cis gender, cis sounds like sissy.
I’m going to start using the term biogender I coined, and instead of cis men and women, biomen and women.
To summarize, If you call a transwoman a man, you’ll be 100% right in the biological sense (chromosomes, sex organs at birth), mostly right in the physical sense (secondary sex characteristics), and arguably mostly right in the social sense, for the biological in large part determines the social, and furthermore the biological is more important than the social, for it’s immutable, and what defines you most is what’s most definite about you.
When people disagree about how a word should be applied, it just is a semantic argument. People on both sides seem to feel very strongly about how the language should be used. To the extent arguing about anything is useful, arguing about this is useful.
It is my understanding that other cultures do have more than two words for genders. Thai ladyboys are one example, and other other parts of southeast Asia have similar concepts (the words used are similar, so it appears to be the same concept shared by cultural osmosis). Samoan has its own concept of a third gender, less likely to be derived from the mainland culture. That latter one is particularly useful, because Samoan gender culture in general is different (the society is less patriarchal), they are an accepted part of society, and there appears to be a long history of the distinction.
Take a step back from this, though, and let’s talk about how words and concepts change as the situation on the ground changes. This strikes me as parallel to something like the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees “the right … to … bear arms”. In modern times, we’re talking about something that the people who wrote that couldn’t have been talking or thinking about. There were no Glocks during the founding. So we have to decide how we want that term to apply, how we want to lump things into the concept of “arms” in the constitutional context.
Similarly here: the word “woman” is hundreds of years old, and throughout that time it referred to something very different from what we now use the word to refer to. The concept has changed, the constellation of facts that are implied has shifted and cleaved. For example, where “independent” is now used frequently with “woman”, those concepts were nearly contradictory a few hundred years ago (google ngrams bear this out, though there is probably a coding error before ~1775, the line is too flat and the change too abrupt).
When this kind of conceptual shift occurs, we need to change how we apply the word. Where once the biology and certain social roles went together, now they are separate. The word will either apply to one, the other or both, and in any case it will not function the way it once did.
Removing ambiguity is nice, but society has changed beneath the word, and sticking with the word doesn’t resolve the ambiguity, it just ignores it.
I think we are using the term “norm” differently. Basic etiquette requires that you avoid conveying to someone, in any way, that they are ugly. I call that a ‘norm’. I’d call holding a door a weak norm, but still a norm (I’d even say that there’s a gendered norm around who holds the door for who, though that’s dying and not enforced in many contexts).
I also think there’s little difference between a social kindness and the standards of decency that an employee can be disciplined for violating. I think there is an expectation that employees will hold the door for customers.
I think this is mostly right. I think the social and biological concepts are less connected than we generally pretend, and that our existing use of the concepts demonstrates this.
We also disagree on what the empirical evidence suggests so far, and what it will show as time goes on. Generally I am wary of studies of looking for innate differences in strongly socialized concepts like race and sex; it’s very hard to control for all the ways socialization can shape people.
Ironically, this doesn’t sound particularly center-right! I feel like I’ve read the same premises in arguments about how white men should stay out of conversation about racism and sexism, or how affirmative action is indispensable in university admissions.
Focus on gender bias, the quantity of social rules nationally may entail on the underlying roles of assigning meaning.
However the family of meanings does not qualify determinants on bases of the the set perimeters within which such determinations become effective and relevant.
Flashpoints are more determinative , and these are more prone to be sig- ificant and hyperbolically noticed. internationally.
Middle East dominance.animating from Iran, for example, sends.women into the kitchen when men discuss any relevant issue .
International relations dwarf constitutional in house concerns , and control of general importer issues become tools of political expediency.
Semantics do not forge lasting and satisfactory agreements, and that is in the upper minds of those who take ahodts of mean ing for granted, below the level of effective policy, and see it more in terms of affective theater.
I get that we’re in the middle of culture war and that in this particular case our language is caught in the crossfire… that generates ambiguity and confusion and makes communicating across the gap difficult.
If I say transwomen are men, you can’t then say I’m wrong and that they are women and expect that to track if you know what I meant was “biological sex”…
you can INSIST that I use language the way you propose but I see no great need to comply… Like I pointed out, I’d want to retain unambiguous words for the biological sexes.
The utility of having those words is far greater than the utility of having words to reference various “social treatments” that change and shift with fashion.
You have failed to convince me otherwise.
Nonsense.
There are tons of ways in which we have treated men and women throughout history and in different cultures…
There is no monolithic “social treatment” that goes with any gender, “social treatment” has always been a moving target.
The novelty isn’t the cultural shift in how we treat the genders… it’s the battleground being shifted to politising and controlling language.
This nonsense is born out of unease… When you call a transwoman “woman” you are technically lying to them and everyone else.
The request from transexuals is very much that they be addressed as the sex they are NOT, that’s the “social treatment” they want.
So you can muddy up the language to erase the inherent lie in granting that request, but we’ll make up new words for the sexes and then you will need to muddy them up as well… round and round we’ll go.
It’s so much easier to just accept that we’re lying in order to ease their pain… then we can save ourselves this trouble.
Society has changed… human biology hasn’t.
Language has change… human biology hasn’t
Yes words might shift in meaning, but if the original word had utility then a new one takes its place…
In all cultures and in all societies people care very much about human biology… if not because of fair cage fights or science then you know, cuz sexy fun times and babies.
I hazard to guess that if a friend set you up with “a nice woman” on a blind date, you’d be pretty surprised if you showed up to find a post-op transman. “I said ‘woman’”, they might protest, and, unambiguous as that statement is, you really should have seen it coming.
Calling a transwoman, “woman” is no more lying than is calling them “man”. Both descriptions can be accurate or misleading depending on how they’re understood. The trick is that we’re relying on a shared understanding of what they mean, and there is less and less shared understanding to rely on. That ambiguity isn’t created by people who want to call a transwoman “woman”, it’s created by changes in society.
Yes, and tons of things that “arms” have meant.
One difference now is the speed at which social roles are changing. My living grandmother was born before women could vote in the United States, and now we have women presidential candidates getting a majority of the vote. That’s quite a move in one lifetime. Much of that change seems to have been in the past few decades, in particular as the internet has allowed organizing at societal scale. Rapid change makes the traditionally slow transition of words insufficient, so the language has lagged the culture.
This is still question-begging; we aren’t talking about biology.
If it were a post-op trans woman the same protest would be voiced.
Sexual attraction isn’t just about biology but ALSO appearance… I’m trying really hard not to view this as a cheap rhetorical ploy
This isn’t a complicated maze to navigate dude… you’re trying like all hell to suggest that the muddy language is born out of necessity. If your friend had just called a spade a spade this would be easy peasy…
“I’m setting you up with a transman” see how easy that was? no words needed to be redefined… man still means man, woman still means woman… and transman/woman covers this scenario.
We absolutely are talking about biology… you want to make it about “social treatment” but you and I don’t disagree about “social treatment”
We both agree that the best option available to us is to lie to people with gender dysphoria… you and I will effectively give them the same “social treatment” so far as I can tell.
The disagreement we have is you want redefine “gender” to longer be a reference to the biological phenomenon but instead merely a form of self-selected title that we address people by…
The impetus behind this is entirely unwarranted by our circumstance and could only serve to make the process of LYING to people more palatable.
In fact, solving the problem of lying, by making the gender with which we address or describe people effectively meaningless and that way, no one can say we’re lying…
But this guilt-washing leaves me wanting words for this very real biological phenomenon previously known as gender…
I disagree. I think above I even raised the distinction between bluntly saying it and something like conveying it. Every person is who what is considered by many ‘ugly’ will have this conveyed to them in specific interpersonal ways and in general category type ways so that they will have dealt emotionally with this over much of their lives. The former comes via indirect comments and social exclusions, and less success than other job seekers, students, romantic partners - since being attractive benefits in all sorts of situations where the actual criteria for the role, except for the last role, are nevertheless skewing in favor of ‘attractive’ people. Body language, facial expressions, tones of voice from all sorts of people, including friends, family, clothing and shopkeepers, the opposite sex, employers in a wide range of situations will ‘convey’ and convey the judgments both of each of our attractiveness levels and then opinions about our hubris, overconfidence in ourselves, silliness for trying, value, status and so on related to our attractiveness. I am not saying this is good, just that it is endemic and extremely effectively carried out. And a person need not have been in a situation where they were treated by others formally in a rude way. Nevertheless this constant triangulating information will have made utterly clear to them where they stand. Now standards vary. The large assed somewhat overweight woman may get negative evaluations conveyed by her white peers and white men, and paradoxical positive evaluations by black men. But conveying is happening all the time. And it is defacto accepted because people are voting with their practice.
Sure. In the context of dating, biology matters. And of course I agree the whole thing could be avoided by saying “transman/woman”. But my point is that it is actually wrong to describe that person as “a nice woman”, right? I think think you agree with that, because you want your friend to use a different word. The word woman, in that context, is not dictated by what you’re saying it’s always dictated by, i.e. biology. Biologically, genetically, chromosomally, that person is a woman, and if those were really the criteria on which you think we should base our gendered descriptions, you should have no problem with that use of woman.
But you do, because it’s wrong: those aren’t the only relevant criteria.
But we disagree in that I don’t think it’s a lie. My argument in this thread is that it’s another accepted meaning of the words.
Karpel Tunnel, I see what you’re saying now, and I agree. You’re right that the information will inevitably be conveyed in subtle ways, and that that’s unavoidable. But a couple distinctions:
First, there’s pretty clearly a norm against intentionally reminding someone that they’re ugly. This would include outright telling someone, but probably also would cover not taking sufficient steps to avoid some of the less subtle ways. I’m thinking of something along the lines of the legal concept of recklessness, i.e. you knew or should have known that some action had a high likelihood of conveying the message “you’re ugly”. I’m thinking of something like making a disgusted face at someone ugly when you see them.
More generally, I would think that part of being a good a salesperson is suppressing even the subtle hints as much as possible, right? And if someone were particularly bad at hiding their disgust with ugly people, that would actually be a fireable offense in a lot of professions, even if it’s innocent in the sense that the person had no idea they were doing it and couldn’t help it (here I’m thinking something like flinching at the touch of an ugly person).
I’d say these things suggest a norm of avoiding reminding people that they’re ugly, even though you’re right that the message will get through. A lot of social niceties involving not turning something everyone knows into common knowledge.
It’s not “wrong”… it’s insufficient, neglecting to tell me something of critical import, especially in the context of a date.
If my friend had called a transwoman a woman, It’d be wrong.
I already explained WHY I’d want my friend to use a different word, so you wouldn’t have to “interpret” why.
“transman” would have conveyed this otherwise unexpected (and in many cases, unwelcome) surprise and in every way have been a superior description
Accepted by some… rejected by others
I’ve tried to make a case based on utility… So far as I can tell, you don’t find that persuasive.
So how do you propose we come to an agreement about a definition?