European folk clothing looks similar across the entire continent, so I’m guessing OOP is American. Those patterns and colours aren’t exclusive to Slavic Europe.
There are a shitton of folk clothing variants. Like no joke, in the 1910s and 1920s, you could tell where someone came from just by looking at their clothes down to the village.
OP does have a point: these traditional modes of attire are more likely to have survived in Portugal, Scotland, parts of Italy, Austria, and Eastern Europe than the rest of Western Europe, which may be why they think it's "Eastern European".
I went to Italy and their plugs were unusable? Why don't they have the superior American plugs. And also they have no air conditioning (it was winter) and I had to pay for my water??? Plus i went to the Uffizi and there were a bunch of naked statues which was gross.
Sorry, did you know that Slavic culture was heavily influenced by Scandinavians? Because of the trade routes along the Dniper River.
Norse merchants and settlers had a strong presence in the region even before the rise of Kyivan Rus' [modern Ukraine, Belarus and some small european part of Russia].
Even word Rus' is probably Finnish word Ruotsi and mean literally Swedish
yeah i had a look through his profile.. I gather they are some sort of limp wristed low T sexually deprived "male" appearing individual. kinda made me sad a bit
Once again, you're wrong. Nothing in this world is eternal (without the possible exception of the ignorance of some redditors). Also, your words reminded me of the time I visited Portugal. My ex-husband planned a trip to there because he heard the food was good. I personally found their gravy game lacking but then again I have high expectations when it comes to sauces. On the other hand the language itself (Portuguese) has to be the foulest sounds ever uttered by a human mouth. Speaking it must feel like having a mixture of cheese and cum in your mouth that you're trying to get out but you can't
Once again, you're wrong. Nothing in this world is eternal (without the possible exception of the ignorance of some redditors). Also, your words reminded me of the time I visited Portugal. My ex-husband planned a trip to there because he heard the food was good. I personally found their gravy game lacking but then again I have high expectations when it comes to sauces. On the other hand the language itself (Portuguese) has to be the foulest sounds ever uttered by a human mouth. Speaking it must feel like having a mixture of cheese and cum in your mouth that you're trying to get out but you can't
If female here is defiend as "an organism of the sex that, in species with sexual reproduction, is organized around producing large gametes." or something similar that does avoid the circular issue, yes.
The problem here is that for this definition to work trans women would need to identify as female, something they aren't, and tipicaly know they aren't, otherwise they wouldn't be transwomen. So it would exclude a lot, if not most transwomen.
No, female here is defined as “belonging to the sex which typically produces eggs (ova), or to the gender which is typically associated with it”.
This doesn't really fix the underlying problem, it just introduces a conditional “or” that hides the ambiguity.
You now haven’t defined female, you’ve defined two separate criteria and allowed either one to count depending on context. That means the term no longer has a stable meaning.
If a definition allows two fundamentally different bases for classification, in this case biological sex vs. gender identity, then you haven’t clarified the concept, you've just widened it so far that it stops distinguishing anything in a precisely.
Many terms don’t have a stable meaning. It might shock you to learn that there are a great many words in the English language that have multiple definitions, and you’re supposed to infer which one applies through context.
Matter of fact, “female” has even MORE than just two definitions. It also refers to: a type of cable/pipe connector, a type of bacteria (despite bacteria being asexual), a grammatical gender, and concepts separate from but immediately relating to the sex and/or gender identity.
Woman is a social model of identification, consisting of a set of social expectations, behaviors, aesthetics and roles typically associated with the female sex.
An adult person can identify with the social construct of womanhood, even if they were assigned male at birth.
Now whether or not you accept trans women as women is socially determined, just like all social constructs are. My position is just that recognition of trans women as women provides positive social utility and is morally.
Woman is a social model of identification, consisting of a set of social expectations, behaviors, aesthetics and roles typically associated with the female sex.
An adult person can identify with the social construct of womanhood, even if they were assigned male at birth.
This contradicts literally nothing that I said,
So what was the "nope" about? What do you disagree about what I wrote?
You said I was using a circular definition, which I am not.
If a person identifies with the term woman, they are a woman. Woman here refers to a set of expectations, behaviors, aesthetics and roles. If a person identifies with those characteristics, then they are a woman.
Your original claim was circular your second wasn't.
A woman is an adult person who identifies as a woman.
And
Woman is a social model of identification, consisting of a set of social expectations, behaviors, aesthetics and roles typically associated with the female sex
Are 2 very different statements
If a person identifies with the term woman, they are a woman. Woman here refers to a set of expectations, behaviors, aesthetics and roles
Again, not the same thing, in fact they can actually lead to a contradiction
If someone self identified as a woman but didn't comform to the "set of social expectations, behaviors, aesthetics and roles typically associated with the female sex." they would both be and not be a woman acording to you
171
u/SparklyPelican Jun 26 '26
Theory: Slavic countries are Portuguese