From: nospam@example.net   
      
     This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,   
     while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.   
      
   On Wed, 7 Aug 2024, Richmond wrote:   
      
   > D  writes:   
   >   
   >> On Tue, 6 Aug 2024, Richmond wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> oldernow  writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 2024-08-05, D  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> Just sayin'.... ;-)   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Show me your chromosomes and I'll show you your gender!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Sure. *Me*. But an entire religion has recently formed   
   >>>> around believers in chromosomal insignificance. How do   
   >>>> you plan to show *them*?   
   >>>   
   >>> People were talking about gender long before chromosomes were   
   >>> discovered, so I don't see why the definition of gender has to be based   
   >>> on chromosomes. In fact there is no way it could be.   
   >>>   
   >>> But it is all just an argument about the meaning of words, as usual.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Is there an inherent reason it could not be based on chromosomes?   
   >   
   > Yes, because the word 'gender' was being used before anyone knew about   
   > chromosomes.   
      
   But we revise the meaning of terms all the time. I see no inherent reason   
   why gender could not be associated with having and not having a Y   
   chromosome.   
      
   Let me give you a trivial example:   
      
   The word “silly” originates from the Old English term “sælig,” which   
   meant   
   “happy” or “blessed.” This term was derived from Proto-Germanic   
   *saligaz,   
   which also carried connotations of happiness and well-being. In its early   
   usage, “silly” was associated with positive attributes, often describing   
   someone who was innocent or pious.   
      
   As the centuries progressed, particularly during the Middle Ages, the   
   meaning of “silly” began to shift. By the 14th century, it started to take   
   on a more negative connotation, referring to someone who was foolish or   
   lacking in common sense. This transition can be attributed to societal   
   changes where innocence and naivety were increasingly viewed as weaknesses   
   rather than virtues.   
      
   >   
   >> It   
   >> seems to me your first and second statements contradict each other.   
   >   
   > It doesn't look that way to me.   
   >   
      
   Ok. We agree to disagree.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)