Women's Olympic Boxing

[Black Dog]

31 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

He might not consider her as "womanly" but if she were a biological woman he would consider her a woman.

But if biology is the be-all and end all of defining what a woman is, why does the concept of "womanly" even exist and vary between societies?

[User]

2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Nah no definition I have will satisfy you so I prefer to keep you sealioning and mad.

LOL, Oh, sure, you can come up with something, but we both know whatever it is will show the absurdity of your position. So... you run and hide. 

[CouchPotato]

11 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

But if biology is the be-all and end all of defining what a woman is, why does the concept of "womanly" even exist and vary between societies?

They are two different words. One was classically used to describe a biological female. "Womanly" was an idea of how a "woman" ought to act. If you didn't act "womanly" you would still have been a woman, a biological female. There was no concept of "womanly" before someone gave a name to those things with vaginas and boobs.

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[User]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

But if biology is the be-all and end all of defining what a woman is, why does the concept of "womanly" even exist and vary between societies?

But if biology is the be-all and end all of defining what a cat is, why does the concept of catlike even exist?

Say, a dancer moves across the dance floor with a catlike grace... OMG, is the dancer a cat?

 

Just now, CouchPotato said:

They are two different words. One was classically used to describe a biological female. "Womanly" was an idea of how a "woman" ought to act. If you don't act "womanly" you are still a woman, a biological female.

They know this. It is just a big dishonest game for them. 

[Matthew]

There is no problem with using a biological definition of women. For the vast majority of the human species there are two biological sexes.

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, CouchPotato said:

They are two different words. One was classically used to describe a biological female. "Womanly" was an idea of how a "woman" ought to act. If you didn't act "womanly" you would still have been a woman, a biological female. There was no concept of "womanly" before someone gave a name to those things with vaginas and boobs.

Why would "how they act" matter at all.

1 hour ago, User said:

But if biology is the be-all and end all of defining what a cat is, why does the concept of catlike even exist?

Cats and humans are different species why do I have to keep telling you this.

[CouchPotato]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

Why would "how they act" matter at all.

Cats and humans are different species why do I have to keep telling you this.

I haven't said it does. Perhaps the definition of womanly is broader than that as well. It wouldn't be just how they ought to act, but also observations about the people with vaginas (which they labelled as women) tended to act.

This really has no relevance to the argument at hand. Whether I define "womanly" correctly or not, there was something called "woman" that they derived it from. That thing was a biological human female.

[Black Dog]

3 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

I haven't said it does. Perhaps the definition of womanly is broader than that as well. It wouldn't be just how they ought to act, but also observations about the people with vaginas (which they labelled as women) tended to act.

Are you suggesting the traits traditionally associated with femininity are biological in nature?

Quote

This really has no relevance to the argument at hand. Whether I define "womanly" correctly or not, there was something called "woman" that they derived it from. That thing was a biological human female.

No the thing that "womanly" references is, as you already said, the idea of how a "woman" ought to act. And that idea is/was largely socially constructed.

[CouchPotato]

Just now, Black Dog said:

Are you suggesting the traits traditionally associated with femininity are biological in nature?

All I am suggesting is that the word "woman" originally applied to a biological female sex. Whatever "womanly" means, the concept of "woman" had to exist first.

[CouchPotato]

7 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

No the thing that "womanly" references is, as you already said, the idea of how a "woman" ought to act. And that idea is/was largely socially constructed.

Whether or not that is the correct definition of "womanly" is irrelevant to whether or not the definition of "woman" ever existed independently of a collection of traits that are "womanly".

There was something they applied the term "woman" to originally. It wasn't to a thing which acted in a "womanly" way. It was to a biological female human.

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Black Dog]

14 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

All I am suggesting is that the word "woman" originally applied to a biological female sex. Whatever "womanly" means, the concept of "woman" had to exist first.

And my point is the concept of women to which "womanly" refers is quite obviously not referring to just the biological female organism. 

 

13 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Whether or not that is the correct definition of "womanly" is irrelevant to whether or not the definition of "woman" ever existed independently of a collection of traits that are "womanly".

There was something they applied the term "woman" to originally. It wasn't to a thing which acted in a "womanly" way. It was to a biological female human.

Again: the thing it refers to is the socially constructed role of "woman" the behaviours and traits it encompasses.

[CouchPotato]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

Again: the thing it refers to is the socially constructed role of "woman" the behaviours and traits it encompasses.

No, that is a modern definition. It originally was not a term which applied to all these things. It was a term for a female biological woman.

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[CouchPotato]

5 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

And my point is the concept of women to which "womanly" refers is quite obviously not referring to just the biological female organism.

I have no interest in what "womanly" means. You introduced the term into the discussion -- in a negative sense (you actually used the word "unwomanly").

[Black Dog]

2 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

No, that is a modern definition. It originally was not a term which applied to all these things. It was a term for a female biological woman.

Yes it always was and always has been. In fact the term was originally applied to men who behaved like women.

Quote

c. 1200, of a man, "wanton, lascivious;" late 14c. of a woman, "feminine," of qualities, "proper to a woman;" from woman + -ly (1). From c. 1400 of men with the sense "effeminate, weak." Related: Womanliness.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/womanly

 

1 minute ago, CouchPotato said:

I have no interest in what "womanly" means. You introduced the term into the discussion -- in a negative sense (you actually used the word "unwomanly").

Of course not because discussing the concept undermines your contention that the sole definition of woman is the biological one and, by extension, there's no such thing s the social construction of gender.

[CouchPotato]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

Yes it always was and always has been. In fact the term was originally applied to men who behaved like women.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/womanly

 

Ah, I see what you are saying here. I misread one of your arguments. I thought you were talking about the word "woman".

[Black Dog]

Just now, CouchPotato said:

Ah, I see what you are saying here. I misread one of your arguments. I thought you were talking about the word "woman".

I am.

[CouchPotato]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

I am.

No, you just provided the etymology of the word "womanly".

womanly (adj.)

c. 1200, of a man, "wanton, lascivious;" late 14c. of a woman, "feminine," of qualities, "proper to a woman;" from woman + -ly (1). From c. 1400 of men with the sense "effeminate, weak." Related: Womanliness.

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[CouchPotato]

Tell you what Black Dog. Let's pick this one up another day. I am going to go read some other threads.

[User]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Cats and humans are different species why do I have to keep telling you this.

Two different species and yet they use the term catlike for humans... OMG, how can that possibly be?!

To the point, this is the absurdity of what you are doing with womanly. 

And further, you are still hiding from answering the question as to what is a woman. 

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, Matthew said:

Then why did most ancient cultures have no word for blue, or the words and concepts they do have for such  colors do not neatly correspond to our own.

Well that's even more silly. Who do you expect to actually buy this crap?

5 hours ago, Matthew said:

The differences between family concepts over time and space prove there is nothing static about it. I agree that there are many biological caregiving and nesting behaviors that transcend human culture. But most of our family traditions and concepts are cultural products.

Huh...and yet you want to deny instinct. If the open denial of nature is what you're sellin'...I ain't buyin'.

It's a losing proposition.

[Matthew]

10 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Well that's even more silly. Who do you expect to actually buy this crap?

The lack of blue in ancient texts is a famous observation that has been discussed for 300 years.

12 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

yet you want to deny instinct.

Says who?

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, Matthew said:

Then why did most ancient cultures have no word for blue, or the words and concepts they do have for such  colors do not neatly correspond to our own?

The differences between family concepts over time and space prove there is nothing static about it. I agree that there are many biological caregiving and nesting behaviors that transcend human culture. But most of our family traditions and concepts are cultural products.

Well like these other examples,  there is the root objective reality, in this case human learning and socialization. But every aspect of how it is done is a cultural creation.

1. You are arguing that humans could not distinguish between colours. Don't be exceedingly stoopid. 

2. We're not arguing if concepts about family have changed. The concept of family is an instinct and thus not a social construct.

3. Sure. But that is NOT what you said. You said they are a social construct...and they are NOT.! How a guy in India feels about family, has no bearing on the fact that he knows what family is.

[herbie]

On 8/2/2024 at 9:14 AM, CouchPotato said:

Who are you to decide what are quality discussions?

He's one of the few voices of reason. Who are you?

[Nationalist]

14 minutes ago, Matthew said:

The lack of blue in ancient texts is a famous observation that has been discussed for 300 years.

Says who?

To both...ur bein' stoopid. 

[Matthew]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You are arguing that humans could not distinguish between colours.

That's not what I said at all.

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

We're not arguing if concepts about family have changed.

Yes we are, the biological aspects of species pairing, mating, caregiving, etc are perhaps instinctual. But all of the ideas and customs and concepts related to family are made by people within their cultures.

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

But that is NOT what you said. You said they are a social construct

Cultural creation and social construct are synonymous.

Edited August 4, 2024 by Matthew