Sure, but if they keep changing the magic words every few years, they have that many more ways to get mad at people for not using the temporarily “correct” terms, and it’s important to lefty power brokers that they have ways to signal themselves as the elect and correct, and others as cancelable heathens. Mostly other lefties, of course, righties don’t give a fuck about their language games and internecine “who’s holier” competitions among lefties are just as important to them as any left-right battle.
Which is longer, much less well known or clear. Guess what. Language should be clear and concise and its evolution has been almost universally in that direction. People in practice won't use these terms to accommodate an extremely special case
It's also needlessly verbose. "A Person who does X" is handled by the suffix "...er" in English. This could have been shortened to "Egg producer" and "Sperm Producer" easily. Also, "produce" is just a latin version of the more comfortable "make", and english accepts hyphenated compounds so a further reduction is possible:
Egg-maker
Sperm-maker <-- this one would be even better as seed-maker since sperm has a greek root and just means "seed", which is what we used to say anyways until everybody got all pretentious all the time.
Ah, but women don't produce eggs. Embryos that will become women produce eggs. And while men do produce sperm, the primary function is not their production, but their delivery to an egg. They are merely the controller and gatekeeper of eggs, and the deliverer to them.
I just confirmed this. From a fertility treatment center:
The peak number of eggs a woman ever has takes place at about 20 weeks of gestation (before they are born and still inside their mother’s womb). At this point, they have roughly 6-8 million eggs. No new eggs will ever be made from this point on.
Thanx. This is one more thing I learned from this discussion group.
Still wholly inconsistent as while females produce eggs during embryonic development they don't become an active part of the life cycle in the same way that males don't produce sperm until puberty has started.
So what labels will they be using for prepubescent children?
Inb4 the low hanging fruit of "next" and/or "targets".
tl;dr this is stoopid
Edit: and again this will exclude those incapable of performing the biological function in question for whatever reasons. Technically anyone who achieves a Darwin award yet survives, which has happened, will find themselves excludes from this dumb criteria.
"Person who produces sperm" is somehow the most sexualized of all these "gender neutral" phrases they've introduced. Because near all the ones for women I've seen are things that exist and make themselves known regardless of sexual activity.
But sperm only exists in sexual activity, so bringing it into the conversation is just another step forward to taking down barriers for pedophilia.
Bigots! This is discrimination against Apache attack helicopters: I am a person who produces AGM-114 Hellfire anti-tank missiles and Hydra 70 general-purpose unguided 70 mm rockets.
The point isn’t inclusion, it’s thought control and confusion, and dumbing down the populace. If you’re taking the extra seconds to say, as one of my professors does, “people who are women or are assigned female at birth” instead of just “women” to a room of 50 non-trans people and zero trans people, that’s a little less time for instruction and education. She’s in line with the leftist orthodoxy now, but in a year she’ll say that and be canceled because that cumbersome phrase leaves out some new nuance that wokesters will be demanding by then. A lot of it is just seeing how far they can push good little wokesters: someone somewhere is probably laughing at how my professor visibly and audibly chokes when she catches herself about to say “woman.”
Edit: but if they want to play these games, I’ll accept “penetrator” and “penetratee.” Call it a compromise!
The article mentions nothing about a textbook. The quote in question comes from the letter they sent home showing an example of their "person first" language curriculum for a sex ed unit. So its still the same problem, especially if you make the easy assumption that they will call the students that during said unit.
A curriculum usually comes from a textbook, so that's purely semantics.
How do you say such retarded things with a straight face. A curriculum is the entire comprehensive structure of a teaching unit. The textbook is a single part of any of that, and usually one of many. My sex ed curriculum back in the day had zero textbooks and was entirely printoffs.
And like I said above, I don't give two shits about the female half of this equation but "person who produces sperm" is outright directly sexualizing young boys, in a way none of them are for girls.
If you think teachers do anything more than churn out lessons based off textbooks, you're retarded
I do, because I actually went to school in the US and saw it happen many times. Including my own sex ed class. I feel like my actual experience trumps your wild hate.
Nobody's going to care about boys being sexualized.
I do, that's why I have an issue with it. Unlike you, who doesn't care about helping anyone if it means women might also benefit or be involved.
Come on, you've seen the sheer volume of absolute trash that goes into teaching now.
Irrelevant and a complete goal post move. Teaching curriculum has way more than just direct textbook transcribing, even if its still trash by a lazy or politically motivated idiot.
Why on earth would you benefit your enemy?
Because everything that could help men, will help women in some form. Even if they don't like it. I won't condemn men to suffering and misery just to make sure women also are.
And that's operating on your wild assumption that not wanting boys to be called "people who produce sperm" is part of whatever you consider the "war on women" in your head. Which I don't agree with.
Replacing one binary with another identical, overlapping binary.
Honk honk!
Sure, but if they keep changing the magic words every few years, they have that many more ways to get mad at people for not using the temporarily “correct” terms, and it’s important to lefty power brokers that they have ways to signal themselves as the elect and correct, and others as cancelable heathens. Mostly other lefties, of course, righties don’t give a fuck about their language games and internecine “who’s holier” competitions among lefties are just as important to them as any left-right battle.
Which is longer, much less well known or clear. Guess what. Language should be clear and concise and its evolution has been almost universally in that direction. People in practice won't use these terms to accommodate an extremely special case
"A person who produces sperm" is, by definition, a boy.
"A person who produces eggs" is, by definition, a girl.
Replacing perfectly adequate names with long-winded phrases is dumb.
It's also needlessly verbose. "A Person who does X" is handled by the suffix "...er" in English. This could have been shortened to "Egg producer" and "Sperm Producer" easily. Also, "produce" is just a latin version of the more comfortable "make", and english accepts hyphenated compounds so a further reduction is possible:
Egg-maker
Sperm-maker <-- this one would be even better as seed-maker since sperm has a greek root and just means "seed", which is what we used to say anyways until everybody got all pretentious all the time.
Ah, but women don't produce eggs. Embryos that will become women produce eggs. And while men do produce sperm, the primary function is not their production, but their delivery to an egg. They are merely the controller and gatekeeper of eggs, and the deliverer to them.
So it would be the eggmaster and the seedbringer.
Why am I now picturing Ghostbusters?
Because these are the fevered machinations of a stay puft.
Say what?
Ovaries produce eggs, that when fertilized by sperm, become women or men eventually..
A girl baby is born with all the eggs she will ever have.
They ripen in the ovaries one by one. However eggs are produced by the fetus in the womb.
I just confirmed this. From a fertility treatment center:
Thanx. This is one more thing I learned from this discussion group.
What this is, is a method to normalize 'sperm' and 'eggs' as the words that come out of kids mouths for boy/girl.
Dick mutilating religions rejoice!
Protect trans students from what? From forcing them to accept reality? I thought the love affairs with gays was over the top but this takes the cake
DEHUMANIZE
YOURSELF AND FACE TO BLOODSHEDStill wholly inconsistent as while females produce eggs during embryonic development they don't become an active part of the life cycle in the same way that males don't produce sperm until puberty has started.
So what labels will they be using for prepubescent children?
Inb4 the low hanging fruit of "next" and/or "targets".
tl;dr this is stoopid
Edit: and again this will exclude those incapable of performing the biological function in question for whatever reasons. Technically anyone who achieves a Darwin award yet survives, which has happened, will find themselves excludes from this dumb criteria.
BLATANT INFERTILE PEOPLE ERASURE!!! #cancelVermont
How about "boy" and "girl"? Or if you want to incorporate some diversity, "Junge" und "Mädchen"?
"Person who produces sperm" is somehow the most sexualized of all these "gender neutral" phrases they've introduced. Because near all the ones for women I've seen are things that exist and make themselves known regardless of sexual activity.
But sperm only exists in sexual activity, so bringing it into the conversation is just another step forward to taking down barriers for pedophilia.
Life sentences for everybody involved in the process, minimum.
Bigots! This is discrimination against Apache attack helicopters: I am a person who produces AGM-114 Hellfire anti-tank missiles and Hydra 70 general-purpose unguided 70 mm rockets.
We already had terms for that men and women for adults, boys and girls for adolescence.
"Teacher, can I go to the person-who-produces-sperm room?"
What utter insanity.
Death and damnation to the trans movement and all who prop it up.
The point isn’t inclusion, it’s thought control and confusion, and dumbing down the populace. If you’re taking the extra seconds to say, as one of my professors does, “people who are women or are assigned female at birth” instead of just “women” to a room of 50 non-trans people and zero trans people, that’s a little less time for instruction and education. She’s in line with the leftist orthodoxy now, but in a year she’ll say that and be canceled because that cumbersome phrase leaves out some new nuance that wokesters will be demanding by then. A lot of it is just seeing how far they can push good little wokesters: someone somewhere is probably laughing at how my professor visibly and audibly chokes when she catches herself about to say “woman.”
Edit: but if they want to play these games, I’ll accept “penetrator” and “penetratee.” Call it a compromise!
That takes a while to say. Man if only we had like one word phases for that or something.
Women are born with all the eggs already produced..
Isn’t this a more convoluted way of saying the same thing?
Reminds me of the difference between “coloured people” and “person of colour”. Semantics, everyone.
The article mentions nothing about a textbook. The quote in question comes from the letter they sent home showing an example of their "person first" language curriculum for a sex ed unit. So its still the same problem, especially if you make the easy assumption that they will call the students that during said unit.
How do you say such retarded things with a straight face. A curriculum is the entire comprehensive structure of a teaching unit. The textbook is a single part of any of that, and usually one of many. My sex ed curriculum back in the day had zero textbooks and was entirely printoffs.
And like I said above, I don't give two shits about the female half of this equation but "person who produces sperm" is outright directly sexualizing young boys, in a way none of them are for girls.
I do, because I actually went to school in the US and saw it happen many times. Including my own sex ed class. I feel like my actual experience trumps your wild hate.
I do, that's why I have an issue with it. Unlike you, who doesn't care about helping anyone if it means women might also benefit or be involved.
Irrelevant and a complete goal post move. Teaching curriculum has way more than just direct textbook transcribing, even if its still trash by a lazy or politically motivated idiot.
Because everything that could help men, will help women in some form. Even if they don't like it. I won't condemn men to suffering and misery just to make sure women also are.
And that's operating on your wild assumption that not wanting boys to be called "people who produce sperm" is part of whatever you consider the "war on women" in your head. Which I don't agree with.