Scott75

Oh, I fully understand people like you will continue to try to advocate for this madness and engage in it yourselves. Well, it looks like you're beginning to accept the fact that these new definitions exist, at least, which is progress.

No, they should be able to shout their issues on the rooftops. Of course, the opposition should be able to shout their disapproval on the rooftops as well. And they should be able to do it without being doxxed or having their jobs threatened. I've seen marchers march for and against LGBT rights, with both having issues because of it. I've personally never been much of a marcher myself, I prefer discussing things online.

I'm sure there is a small percentage that keeps to themselves, but the vast majority of both groups want the entire country onboard with their agendas. This notion that members of the LGB community can only be alright in your book if they "keep to themselves" is really something. Anyway, I'm glad that you're now at least saying agendas, plural. If the LGBTQ community was truly united, none of them would have supported Trump. And yet: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-pride-gay-republicans-why-they-re-backing-president-n1243469

Here's the problem with that. Arachnophobia and most of the other phobias aren't just a fear of something. We don't just call anything we're afraid of a phobia. I would not want to be stabbed but nobody would go around saying I have knifophobia. What characterizes a phobia is that it is in irrational fear. Your fear of spiders is irrational, the spiders themselves are actually no threat. Technically, spiders -can- cause harm, but I've never actually been bitten by a spider, or at least not that I'm aware of. So I think there is -some- rationality in being fearful of spiders, though I think that I am probably a bit too afraid of them. I believe that you and some others here have some irrational fear of transgender people, not to mention the new definitions for terms such as gender, male and female.

No, what you're doing is pushing the trans agenda. I have yet to see any hard evidence that there -is- a "trans agenda". There are people like me who believe that trans people should be treated with respect though.

You are not a doctor, this is not a diagnostic therapy session. True, but it doesn't take a doctor to point out that a person seems to have a certain condition. But if you don't think you have a case of transphobia, you're free to explain why you believe this.

Yes, it was recognized as a disorder sometime ago. New evidence shows that it is not a disorder or a mental illness. That's not quite accurate. Gender dysphoria is definitely a disorder and a mental health issue that interferes with people's ability to lead a normal or healthy life and is still listed as such. Not every transgender person has dysphoria but most do to one extent or another and if they don't then really it's just a personal preference and there's no reason why society should play along with it any more than there is if someone decides they're more comfortable as a furry. It seems you haven't taken society's acceptance, or lack thereof, into account when it comes to gender dysphoria. The issue of societal rejection is not something that is restricted solely to people who are transgender. The personal life of well known actress Chloe Grace Moretz is educational in this regard: ** Moretz has publicly supported LGBT equality.[84] Moretz, who is openly lesbian, also has two gay brothers; Moretz states they had initially tried to "pray the gay away" to appease their community.[85] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloë_Grace_Moretz

Yes, it was recognized as a disorder sometime ago. I agree that it -was- classified as a disorder in the past. It's now called gender dysphoria or gender incongruence. Wikipedia provides some history on all of these terms: ** Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person experiences due to a mismatch between their gender identity—their personal sense of their own gender—and their sex assigned at birth.[5][6] The term replaced the previous diagnostic label of gender identity disorder (GID) in 2013 with the release of the diagnostic manual DSM-5. The condition was renamed to remove the stigma associated with the term disorder.[7] The International Classification of Diseases uses the term gender incongruence instead of gender dysphoria, defined as a marked and persistent mismatch between gender identity and assigned gender, regardless of distress or impairment. Not all transgender people have gender dysphoria.[8][9] Gender nonconformity is not the same thing as gender dysphoria[10] and does not always lead to dysphoria or distress.[11] The causes of gender incongruence are unknown but a gender identity likely reflects genetic, biological, environmental, and cultural factors.[12][13][14] Diagnosis can be given at any age, although gender dysphoria in children and adolescents may manifest differently than in adults.[15] Complications may include anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.[9] Treatment for gender dysphoria includes social transitioning and often includes hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or gender-affirming surgeries, and psychotherapy.[2][3] Some researchers and transgender people argue for the declassification of the condition because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance and reinforces the binary model of gender.[16] However, this declassification could carry implications for healthcare accessibility, as HRT and gender-affirming surgery could be deemed cosmetic by insurance providers, as opposed to medically necessary treatment, thereby affecting coverage.[17] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria

Political activism is what drives transgenderism. Before it was just an underground thing, now it's f*cking everywhere. Slave owners were quite annoyed when political activists started calling for the abolishment of slavery as well. More recently, many were annoyed when people started calling for legalizing gay marriage. I think almost everyone agrees that the abolition of slavery was a good thing. I suspect you might be one of those who is annoyed at the expanded rights of the LGBT community. In time, I believe that such people will be viewed as former slave owners are viewed now. Time will tell.

The definition of a transgender female is a male. If they want to be called a transgender female then we can certainly look at accommodating that but really if you wanted to find tune it then they would just be transgender. But their biology doesn't change just because they're perception does. A transgender female is a male I -think- we can agree that up until fairly recently, the definition of a male was fairly simple. This has changed, since many people, including myself, now define male as anyone who identifies as a male, with the same being true for females. Thus, a transgender female would be a female, at least gender wise. -Biologically-, they would be male. The fact that you want to ignore the fact that many now separate biological sex from gender doesn't mean that online sources of information and even institutions such as courts and the FDA now follow these new definitions.

Like how you think you are the judge of all humankind? Where have I ever said that? I agree that you didn't say that you think "you are the judge of all humankind", but like others here, you -do- seem intent on trying to ignore the fact that many people have defined men and women as people who identify as such. If you -did- accept this, you wouldn't be able to so blithely say that transgender people who identify as the opposite of their biological gender are something they aren't.

You are also using the new gender terms as you define yourself as something other than just a man. I define myself as a -type- of man, a cisgender one. There are also transgender men. I agree I have taken sides when it comes to the definition of terms like gender, man and woman. I -don't- agree that I have "abandoned the biological aspects of this debate". Far from it. In fact, it's precisely because I think biology is important that I have embraced terms like transgender and cisgender. I also think that cisgender women should have the right to compete in sports where only cisgender women can participate.

If someone says "We should kill the Jews "and you turn around and say "Yes I think we should kill the Jews for sure", then you are absolutely helping to create the problem. Agreed, but that's not what I'm saying at all. Instead, I'm pushing -against- those who discriminate against a given group, in this case, transgenders and transexuals.

I am asking if you believe the definition of male and female you are pushing here. The evidence that these definitions exists is irrefutable. I've pointed this out in the past, but it looks like you need reminding. Here's a good document on the subject from the FDA: https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2025/1/fda-proposes-to-modernize-guidance-on-sex,-gender Quoting from it: ** Both of the new draft guidances have a preference for using “females/women” and “males/men” instead of “women” or “men” alone. The FDA included the following definitions of sex and gender at the start of the draft documents, noting that the terms have evolved into “separate concepts with distinct definitions.” “Sex: A biological construct based on anatomical, physiological, hormonal, and genetic (chromosomal) traits. Sex is generally assigned based on anatomy at birth and is usually categorized as female or male, but variations occur. Variations of sex refers to differences in sex development or intersex traits.” “Gender: A multidimensional construct that encompasses how an individual self-identifies. Gender may be described across a continuum, may be nonbinary, and may change over the course of a lifetime. Gender may or may not correspond to a person’s sex assigned at birth.” **

Exactly. So start actually responding to the things I say. For the audience, User literally cut out my first sentence, where I made it clear that I -do- respond to what he says. Quoting: **I respond to what you say, you just don't like my responses.** What I said after the sentence you quoted is also rather important: ** You -did- say that I was fabricating a problem, though. I'm just trying to point out to you that the new gender terms are not something I invented, and they are being used in court cases and Wikipedia articles. You can try to deny these new definitions exist all you like, but Wikipedia and court decisions aren't going to just go away because you don't like the fact that they're there. **

No, the best solution is to just stick with men and women As I've repeated many times, there are many who now define men and women as anyone who identifies as such. Because of this, I think transforming men's and women's bathrooms into unisex bathrooms may be the best solution. I think it's somewhat akin to getting rid of the "colored" vs. "white" bathrooms back in the segregationist days. There was certainly a part of the population that was quite vocal against that too, but I think at -this- stage, we can all agree that it was the right decision.

How are trannies not being included? Your language makes it clear you have little respect for transgender and transexual people: ** Tranny is an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual,[1] often specifically a transgender woman.[2] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny

I did. No, you did not. I suspect it may be best that we agree to disagree on this point. Said the guy who just called @Scott75 a "ignorant a$$hole. I'm constantly amazed at your complete lack of self awareness. Agreed, he could definitely use some work in the self awareness department :-p.

As we've explained many times before your explanation appears to be a lie. You have? Where?

We are only going in circles for as much as you choose to go in circles. No, we're going around in circles because you refuse to accept that some people believe that terms like cisgender or gender identity are good to use at times. You can disagree with them all you like, but they're still going to use it. This includes large organizations like Wikipedia and even the FDA.

Sure, but this is about being able to say that someone is -not- trans without saying "not trans" or, even worse, "normal". You don't need a way to say that. I have repeated myself half a dozen times now. Men are males. Women are females. Trans are trans. I have also repeated myself many times that many people, including myself, are now defining men and women as people who identify themselves as such. Given the fact that there are biological differences between trans and cisgender men and women, using terms such as trans and cis to denote these differences can be useful in some circumstances. You even recognize this when it comes to trans people, you just seem to dislike the flip side of this, which would be cis people.

As I have said previously, I have never used the equivalent term for cisgender here in Mexico in the 3 years I've been living here, so I can agree that it's not a term that's used often. This is not a discussion about how often you use the term. This is you here making an argument for why others should and the made up problem you are using to justify that. I and a good many others believe that it is part of the best way of differentiating between people who identify as the gender they are biologically of a given sex but identify with the opposite gender and those who are biologically of a given sex and identify with the same gender. Surely you can see how much shorter it is to say transgender and cisgender that the long sentence I just made.

You are a strange duck. And you are an ignorant one. I support inclusivity. MAGAs do not. That makes me a better person than you. Do you understand? I understand the simpleton assertion you are trying to make, sure. Its still wrong. Says who? Your imaginary supernatural master? Do you know why MAGA and religion go hand in hand? Because they both require a disconnect from reality in order to participate. LGBQT folks have been around since day one. That makes their existence every bit as "natural" as heterosexuals. Your ignorance is on full display again. Aren't you embarrassed? I think MAGA is too big of a group to label as uniform here, but I fully agree that your "Says who?" question is rather important. As to my comment on the LGBTQ community, it's not now, nor has it ever been, completely uniform in its views, even in regards to MAGA: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-pride-gay-republicans-why-they-re-backing-president-n1243469 That being said, I think that in general, the MAGA movement doesn't help the LGBTQ community.

You are a strange duck. No, she's not as "strange duck" for asking you questions designed to engage your rational mind. Clearly, her effort failed, but it's not too late. How about you try answering her questions?

And you have no idea how definitions work. And? Did you just admit that you have no idea how a recursive acronym works? Once again, you can't put forth logical rational arguments to support your positions, so you have nothing left now but to continually try to make things personal. No, my arguments are rational, you just keep on snipping out the rational argument part. For instance, I didn't finish what I was saying with the quote above. Here's the complete paragraph: ** You're simply a part of the anti-gender movement who, as Wikipedia states, "views advances in gender inclusion and LGBT rights as threats to traditional family structures, religious values, and established norms". **