Scott75

I see, so what you're really saying is that there are two types of women: biological women and psychological women, and both are equally women. I've never heard the term "psychological women" before, I think it'd be best to stick to biological women and transgender women. And while many, including myself, now clasify both as women, they are -not- the same. Only biological women can get pregnant, to name perhaps the most important example. But when it comes to many other aspects, they can be thought of as around the same. The larger point here is that even biological men and biological women aren't that different, other than a few things, such as getting pregnant or impregnating. What I understand is that you, like many others, jump to a lot of conclusions. Women's bathrooms have individual stalls that are walled off from the others, unlike men's bathrooms, which frequently have urinals. Many urinals now have partial walls on both sides of them and I suspect the solution may be to just have individual stalls in bathrooms where both biological sexes could use, thus getting rid of the problem of where people go to the washroom. This concept certainly isn't new: https://shunshelter.com/article/what-is-a-unisex-bathroom

All your proving is that there is no merit to your attempt to try and change the meaning of words. As I've explained many times before, I am not attempting anything, other than trying to explain to you and others here that terms like man and woman have definitions that you clearly don't like and that I do.

First of all, I'd like to point out that I think that Michael Hardner's response to your post in post #805 was quite good. Your invective laden response back in post #809, not so much :-p. Anyway, in response to your first point, I don't quite agree with Mr. Hardner in his belief that this trangender subject doesn't matter, but I fully agree with him that what's needed in this subject (or any other) is for people to be respectful of each other's beliefs. I fully agree with Mr. Hardner's response to your second point that you're wildly exagerating. I see from Mr Hardner's comment of your third point that it's changed. I think that's good, it suggests you do realize when you go overboard sometimes. In any case, in response to your new 3rd point, I'm not American, but even if I was and had the capacity to vote, I wouldn't have voted for Kamala. I wouldn't have voted for Trump either. I may well have voted for RFK Jr. if he'd still been on the ballot, but he wasn't, so I may well have decided not to vote at all. Uhm...that post 809 is not mine. People who choose to not vote, have no cause to complain. Indeed. I suspect you thought that I was responding to a post of yours. As you can see from the nested quotes, I wasn't. I suspect you're playing games now. No, you just got confused and thought I was replying to you in post #890. If you look at the post, it's clear that I was responding to Deluge, not you.

I don't know about Bessent yet, but I'm really hoping that RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard become part of Trump's cabinet. RFK Jr. for his work on health and Tulsi Gabbard for her recognizing the folly of going head to head with Russia in Ukraine.

You did try to define the word. No, for a while now, I've been pointing out that a great deal of people -already- define words like man and woman as anyone who identifies as a man or a woman. 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". Fine, but you should at least acknowledge the fact for more than the few seconds that it takes for you to say this. If you -did-, then you'd have to admit that I'm not "trying" to define new definitions for gender and gender terms. I'm simply pointing out that they've already been defined in the ways I describe for quite some time now, to the point that even the FDA is using these new definitions.

No, it doesn't work the same way. I suspect you have no idea how a recursive acronym works. Here's the introduction to Wikipedia's definition of the term: ** A recursive acronym is an acronym that refers to itself, and appears most frequently in computer programming. The term was first used in print in 1979 in Douglas Hofstadter's book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, in which Hofstadter invents the acronym GOD, meaning "GOD Over Djinn", to help explain infinite series, and describes it as a recursive acronym.[1] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_acronym If we were to replace the word acronym for word, it'd work the same way. I'll do a definition right now to who you how easy it'd be to substitute acronym for word: ** A recursive word is an word that refers to itself. The term was first used in 2024 in an online forum called repolitics.com, in which a poster named Scott75 pointed out that terms like man and woman could be considered to be recursive words by those who define those words as including transgender people who are biologically of one sex but identify as the opposite gender. **

Interesting article I just looked through today, thought others here might find it interesting as well. Quoting the first few paragraphs below: ** By Greg Hunter On January 1, 2025 Catherine Austin Fitts (CAF), Publisher of The Solari Report, says the real work for the Trump Administration is happening now. CAF is a financial expert and former Assistant Secretary of Housing (Bush 41 Admin.) who managed hundreds of billions of dollars in her career. CAF says this is a fight within the Trump Administration that is summed up by those who will fight for freedom and sovereignty and those who want America under Deep State control. CAF explains, “You had a lot of people who voted for Trump that wanted to see him protect freedoms. You also have a lot of people voting and donating for Trump because they think he can get them the control grid. The centralization and decentralization are both hoping Trump will give them what they want. . . . Trump has to do something that works economically. The first day, Trump will be asked to fill the top 10 or 20 positions. Ultimately, after you fill the cabinet and the other top positions, then there are another 10,000 positions to be filled. The President does 1,000 positions, and those thousand do the rest of about 10,000 positions. The guys who want the control grid are trying to get their people in place. The guys who want freedom are trying to get their people in place. . . . After you get the people in place, it’s going to have to be battled out one policy at a time. . . . So, this is trench warfare, and it’s not going to be decided by the election. It’s going to be decided by the staffing and the policy debate that happens day after day. The corruption that has to be cleaned up is huge. Take the recent announcement of royalties being paid to a government health agency — the National Institutes of Health (NIH). CAF says, “The NIH is receiving $1.1 billion from Pfizer–BioNTech for the Covid vaccine shots.” Ed Dowd says we just added a fresh 800,000 disabled people to the 4 million disabled since the CV19 shots were introduced. The total amount of disabled people in the US from the CV19 vax now stands at 4.8 million. CAF points out Dr. Mark Skidmore (Michigan State) just published a study that says if we could go back to the disability numbers of 2010 and before, the US could reduce the federal deficit by $500 billion a year!! CAF says, “If you connect the dots with Ed Dowd, Dr. Skidmore’s study and the announcement of Pfizer paying royalties to NIH, we are paying NIH a billion dollars to poison the American people and bankrupting the country.” ** Full article: https://usawatchdog.com/trump-admin-fight-between-freedom-deep-state-control-catherine-austin-fitts/

It doesn't matter, does it? Your posts are objectionable regardless of who you are debatng. If my posts were so objectionable, I doubt I'd be getting so many responses to them. I believe you yourself said that I am pretty good at refraining from crass insults, which is something that many posters here struggle with.

If by rights, you mean the right to be insulted, I suppose that's true. You certainly don't have any reservations in doing that by continuing to call transgender people trannies. Anyway, I found something that a good amount of transgender people are trying to achieve, which I strongly support: ** A major goal of transgender activism is to allow changes to identification documents to conform with a person's current gender identity without the need for gender-affirming surgery or any medical requirements, which is known as gender self-identification.[1][2][3] It is part of the broader LGBT rights movements. ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_movement We may disagree on many things, but we essentially agree that transgender transition hormones/hormone blockers and surgery can be something that people can regret. If people could get the gender identity they want -without- having to do this, I think it could avoid situations of this nature.

No, that's not true. I myself am a cisgender male. I suppose I could say that I'm not a trans male, but I'd rather define myself but what I am, not what I'm not. Perhaps same gender male might work, but cis is definitely shorter. You can define yourself as Cow dung if you like, but that doesn't give you the right to make that determination for anybody else. What gives me the right to label people in x or y way is what we might call the tree of society and its branches. In this forum, which could be considered a small branch of society, I've noticed that people are allowed a pretty wide range of ways to label each other, but as I pointed out, on Facebook and other media style books, tranny is a term that has been banned. That is -not- the case for the term cisgender. But there's another issue here, which is that while the Admins here may be fine with people calling each other all sorts of slurs, most would agree that calling a biological male who identifies as a male a cisgender male is not a slur against that person.

Of course it does. Certainly within the context of the community they live in and how they interact with it. Don't believe me? Just go ask a n*gger or two. People don't exist in a vacuum. Their environment and the society they live in plays a huge role in forming who they are so it absolutely does change them. Labelling or categorizing people -itself- doesn't change people. Voicing those categorizations can certainly have an effect though. Yes, -that- is true. Oh you mean despite your whining i was right. Imagine that. Yawn. You can't seem to stop yourself from insulting people at every turn, can you? Re-reading what you said in your previous post, I see where I missed the point I was trying to make, which is the same one I made in my last response about labelling/categorizations- it's not the labelling and categorization itself which is the issue, but voicing it that can lead to issues. That logic doesn't track. Let's see your reasoning. Contininuing... I certainly agree with that. Let's see what else you're saying... I highly suspect you're mis-using the term interrogatory. Just to make sure we're on the same page, interrogatory means: ** adjective Asking a question; of the nature of a question; interrogative. noun A written or oral question that must be answered under oath and is asked by a party in a lawsuit of another party or of a potential witness prior to trial. ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/interrogatory You do have a point in regards to it not explaining why they found that particular term to be offensive. First of all, I'm not sure why you're mentioning a University. The Wikipedia entry I quoted certanly never mentioned any. Here's what it actually said on the term tranny: ** Tranny is an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual,[1] often specifically a transgender woman.[2] During the early 2000s, there was some confusion and debate over whether the term was considered as a slur, was considered acceptable, or a reappropriated term of unity and pride, but by 2017, the term had been banned by several major media stylebooks and was considered hate speech by Facebook.[3][4] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny Now, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the term cisgender: ** The word cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) describes a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth, i.e., someone who is not transgender.[1][2][3] The prefix cis- is Latin and means on this side of. The term cisgender was coined in 1994 as an antonym to transgender, and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender.[4][5] The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique. ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender So, controversial, certainly, but what it is -not- is a derogatory term.

I asked an Admin (the Admin?), he said that the database server decided to crash and his monitors were still reporting the site was up, but the DB server wasn't servering the bits. I wonder if repolitics could automatically monitor a site like this one: https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/repolitics.com.html#fb-root It definitely reported that the site was down :-p.

No, that's not what it says. For the audience, who may not have seen the post Nationalist was responding to, this is what the Wikipedia article said: ** In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender in the social sense of gender role or gender identity.[5][6] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female

My disagreement with your absurd attempts to redefine words I made no attempts. I simply told you of the fact that words such as female have already been given new definitions. Even quoted a Wikipedia entry proving my point. You snipped off the Wikipedia entry, perhaps thinking that this fact would just go away if you snipped it from my quote. But ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.

I listened to you...and then informed you of your hubris. The first time you mentioned hubris, back in your post #482, all you said in your post was "Lol...the hubris of this is fckin' monumental. Your article proves that". In my response to your post, I couldn't grasp that you would somehow think that my article 'proved' this alleged hubris. I thought you must be thinking of something else, so I asked you what you thought my article proved. This time, when you said "monumental hubris", I got your meaning and wrote a lengthy paragraph explaining to you and anyone else reading that I saw no hubris in what I'd said in post #670. Quoting: ** I don't see any hubris in the article I posted. You had asked whether a woman can procreate without a man. I pointed out that if we are defining women as people who identify as women, the answer is yes, so long as one of the women is a biological man- the article proved that. ** Your only response was "Hubris and social rot". Talk about hubris -.- It's at this point that I think I came to the conclusion that you really weren't listening to what I was saying and were just repeating what you'd said before.

No, I do not agree with you nor do I think that is better to use common or uncommon. However, to the actual point I am making here, it doesn't matter which you use. Normal or common, my point is still the same. You want to force a change that is unnecessary on the common to accommodate the uncommon. No. What change do you think I want to force?

There is no if about it. This is a fringe group. Less than 1% of the population identifies as trans. As if trans people were the only ones who were fighting for their rights. You do remember that I'm not trans, right?

Again, they are if some people define terms like male and female to include anyone who identifies as male and female. You seem to want to deny that this is, in fact, how many people define those terms, including myself now, but that doesn't change the fact that they do. Well, too bad for them. Ultimately, dictionaries and the courts will decide what definitions will win the day. In regards to court cases, it's clear that both sides have won and lost battles. I'm just pointing out facts on the ground. I also think that this is how things should be, but that point is secondary.

No, I'm just trying to point out that a good amount of people have already changed their meaning of male and female. You can deny that this has happened, but it's quite clear that it has, and this is reflected in both dictionaries and the law. No, you agree with this and you are here defending and advocating for it. The fact that I agree with a fair amount of people on this point doesn't change the fact that definitions for male and female that include trans people were put in place long before I arrived here to point this fact out. So... they can call themselves Trans. We already have a word for that. Trans people can certainly call themselves trans, and they do. But if you want to make it clear that you are -not- trans, then cis is a good word to use. In many contexts, people who are trans and cis can just say they are the gender that they identify themselves with. However, in cases where knowing a person's -biological- sex becomes important, that's when we can use words like trans and cis.

No, that is not my problem at all. That is their problem. It is only a problem for me in as much as someone like you or them insists I must play along. Nope. A trans woman is not a real woman. Hence the reason you have to say trans woman. Ah, but that's just it, you see, no one "has to say" trans woman. That's a choice that's made by some, such as yourself. Others choose not to make that choice. This, in turn, can get confusing if people want to differentiate between transgender and cisgender women. Simple solution is to welcome terms like transgender and cisgender.

Well, now you are on to arguing about a different problem. Define more supportive. If you are talking about helping them connect with the mental health they need, helping them deal with their mental health so as to avoid suicide, I am all for being more supportive. So, your ideas of more supportive and mine are likely worlds apart. Your idea of more supportive here is that I have to be called cisgender and accept nonsensical and absurd definitions of male and female. Out of the two of us, my notion of more supportive actually helps them. Accepting terms like cisgender is a natural consequence of accepting the fact that many people now include anyone who identifies as a given gender to be that gender. You can dislike this new definition for what gender means, but it doesn't change the fact that many people now use this definition. As a result, if one wants to know if someone is -biologically- male or female, adding a term like cis or trans can help clarify things.

Oh, you're talking about the RINO's (Republican In Name Only). Yes, I'm sure most, if not all, of those invertebrates are down for whatever the trannies serve up. Who determines who is a RINO and who isn't? I took a look at Wikipedia's page on RINO, found these interesting quotes: ** During Republican primary campaign season, some conservative organizations target Republicans who fail to adopt their stances by referring to them as RINOs. A "RINO Hunters Club" formed by the National Federation of Republican Assemblies has taken political action against those they considered RINOs.[5][6] The fiscally conservative 501(c)4 organization Club for Growth started the "RINO Watch" list to monitor "Republican office holders around the nation who have advanced egregious anti-growth, anti-freedom or anti-free market policies"; other conservative groups published similar lists. [snip] Recently, the term has been used to describe Republican critics of former President Donald Trump, with Trump himself tweeting that Congressional Republicans who recognized Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 US Presidential election are RINOs. Some Republicans critical of Trump occasionally used the epithet to describe Trump himself, due to his history as a registered Democrat.[8][9] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_in_name_only

Sorry, pal, my pushing is all pushBACK. I'm arguing to preserve what's already been. That makes sense. Times change, and there will always be some who don't like the changes. Sometimes, the changes are bad, such as the addition of harmful herbicides and pesticides in our foods. Sometimes, the changes are good. I ofcourse believe that the addition of terms such as gender identity is a good thing. I'm guessing you don't. Unsubstantiated assertions are easy to make. What's generally much harder is to back them up with evidence.

Scott75 believes transsexualism is America's future, and I think he's gotten highly excited about that idea. I wouldn't be surprised if he's already considering gender reassignment surgery. False. As I've mentioned before, I'm a cisgender male. But more than that, I'm not a fan of gender reassignment surgery. Like Michael Hardner, I don't think that minors should be having it done at all and I -suspect- that there are better solutions for many adults who are considering doing it as well. However, I think that adults should be allowed to have it done. No, I just want transgender people to have places to go the washroom or locker room and not be discriminated against. I remember hearing a personal story of a school nurse allowing a transgender student to use a special washroom, presumably to avoid the bullying when they used the washroom that comforms to their biological sex. No, though I highly suspect that a transgender woman who's had surgery would have a hard time being able to use one of those. I personally don't like using urinals myself, especially if they don't have partitions, as I'd rather have more privacy. Wrong again.

Kids need to be taught who they are, not who they've been told to think who they are, and this is accomplished through biology instruction. As I've said many times, I have nothing against biology and I'm glad that there is now a distinction for a good amount of people between a person's biological sex and a person's gender identity. Kids need to be taught these differences, so that they can be both accepting of other's diversity and not feel ashamed if they find that they themselves don't conform to gender norms. There you go, insulting transgender people again. I think that's enough for this post.