Scott75

Looks like he's right you're wrong. I invite anyone reading this to take a look at my post #717 and see if they agree with CdnFox.

You did, yes. Glad you agree. I agree that you quoted me. You may want to read the rest of my previous post to see where we disagreed.

It's not "some" of the trans community; it's ALL of it, including the LGB cultists. Check out the link below, and try not to get too excited - this is a public forum, after all. https://www.thetaskforce.org/ I asked if you had a link handy for this alleged LGBT agenda. You provided a link to an LGBT activist site. That's not what I'd asked for. I suspect there is no LGBT agenda, just activist sites like the one you provided. If yet to see any evidence for your notion that "all" of the LGBT community is unified in anything.

I think this article is useful in understanding the danger of hateful words used on a group of people: https://itstartedwithwords.org/statements/

It adds nothing to the discussion other than to lump someone in with an obviously bad group like the KKK. It is a petty and disgusting jab that makes this personal. To the point again... you are not above the fray. If you want to lecture people on name calling or personal insults, deal with your own attempts to make things personal here. At least have the honesty to own up to it instead of this pathetic attempt to weasel your way out of it. I stand by my point that some of the behaviours in the anti-gender movement, of which you clearly seem to be a part of, are quite similar to those taken by groups such as the KKK, although they are perhaps more extreme in their hate for transgender people. An article on a KKK flyer on transgender people can be seen here: https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/hateful-anti-transgender-flyer-distributed-by-kkk-in-alabama-neighborhood

Yes, that is your problem. Not mine. Not societies. One you are creating and pushing. I didn't "create" this problem, it's one that predates my birth. Nor am I "pushing" it. I'm simply pointing it out. Yes, you are here pushing this. You are not merely pointing it out. You have been making arguments for this. In this particular argument, I'm just pointing out that "different groups of people define men and women differently". You can choose to ignore this fact, but the fact remains regardless.

Yes, that is your problem. Not mine. Not societies. Don't kid yourself, it's your problem too. If it wasn't, we'd really have nothing to discuss here. The same goes for society. If this problem didn't exist in society, there wouldn't be court cases dealing with how to deal with people who are born of a given sex but identify with the opposite gender. Nope. This is only my problem in as much as you are trying to fabricate it into being one for me. I'm not 'fabricating' court cases, or Wikipedia articles detailing the new uses for terms like gender.

No, you were accusing someone else of this, now you are accusing me. I was telling Deluge that he seemed to have a case of transphobia and didn't realize that you weren't the person I'd been talking to. In any case, you also seem to have a case of transphobia. No, it's just a label that I think fits people like you and Deluge. If you'd like to argue that you aren't transphobic, by all means, present your evidence. I don't think anyone should be called stupid or dumb. I don't see how it helps to understand a person. Calling someone transphobic, on the other hand, can explain a fair amount about a person, especially in a debate on trans issues.

I think there's no point in going further, because I -suspect- you -know- that trannies is a word that is now generally considered offensive to transgender people. But just in case you don't: ** 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

They can do that for themselves but they can't do that for everyone else and considering that you insist that straight people identify as "cis" You pretty much shot yourself in the foot already I'm beginning to think that I may have reached an impasse for people like you, Deluge, User and Nationalist. You refuse to accept the fact that there are now a good amount of people who define words like male as female as anyone who identifies as such, at least from the perspective of gender. If you can't even recognize this basic fact, I'm beginning to think there is no point in continuing this debate.

I'm just pointing out that you seem to have a case of transphobia. Here's a classic example. You cannot argue with what @User Has said I disagree with that on general terms, but in this particular case, I got mixed up- I had told Deluge that it seemed like he had a classic case of transphobia, User came up with his comment above and I didn't realize that he wasn't the one I'd brought up the bit on transphobia. That being said, I suspect that he'd also qualify as having transphobia. Same with you.

And yet you continue it. I'm not the one who's constantly accusing -you- of being dishonest, as well as using tons of insulting terms to describe you. You really need to take a look at your own behaviour here. I think a certain bible verse applies well here: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

No, they really can't. Of course they can. This is Canada, this isn't around the world. First of all, this thread is in the "Federal Politics of the United States" forum. Secondly, while I was born and spent most of my life in Canada, I'm not in it now, I've been living in Mexico for the past 3 years. Thirdly, Deluge's opening post made no mention of this discussion only being about the Canadian experience. That being said, since you clearly want to focus on the Canadian experience, I do acknowledge that LGTBQ rights in Canada are some of the best in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Canada Quoting the introductory paragraph: ** Canadian lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights are some of the most extensive in the world.[5][6][7] Same-sex sexual activity, in private between consenting adults, was decriminalized in Canada on June 27, 1969, when the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69 (also known as Bill C-150) was brought into force upon royal assent.[1] In a landmark decision in 1995, Egan v Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada held that sexual orientation is constitutionally protected under the equality clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[8] In 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world, and the first in the Americas, that legalized same-sex marriage.[9] In 2022, Canada was the third country in the world, and the first in North America, that statutorily banned conversion therapy nationwide for both minors and adults, and made it a crime to subject anyone to it, as defined by statutory law in the Criminal Code. **

I'm going to assume you meant something like "Dude" instead of "Do". Hard to say, you clumped so many Quotes together I'm not even a million percent sure who you're talking to. Is this your very first time on a discussion forum junior? I've been posting in online forums for around 3 decades now. Which has certainly given me enough time to realize when someone is trying to foist the blame for their own typos on me using spurious logic. Not my typos kiddo and not even your typos. Explain to me how "Do people are just sick of dealing with your dishonesty" is a proper English sentence and then we can talk about who made a typo.

Oh, you've done a marvelous job of holding back the insults Thank you :-). What I've been trying to do is explain to you and a few others here why I believe what I believe. You've already acknowledged that I'm not insulting people. I for one like trying to understand why people believe what they believe. It's a large part of why I've listened to you and others who disagree with some of my points of view on this subject. If you don't like listening to what I have to say, you ofcourse don't have to read my posts. Ah, I see. you've started with the insults again. Time to stop reading your post.

That's the stupidest conclusion a person can come up with. [snip] Invective laden diatribes aren't exactly helpful in discussions. At best, the person you hurl them at simply points this out. At worst, they start doing the same, resulting in a flame war.

No, what you're saying is that a man can also be a woman because he identifies as a woman. In other words, you're saying that biological sex is no longer the sole determinant of a person's sex. No, I'm not saying that at all. No one can change a person's biological sex. However, for some time now, there has been a definition of a person's -gender- that allows anyone who identifies as a given gender to be that gender. I just found a Wikipedia page called Gender identity that explains all of this in great detail. Quoting from the 2 first paragraphs of their article: ** Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender.[1] Gender identity can correlate with a person's assigned sex or can differ from it. In most individuals, the various biological determinants of sex are congruent and consistent with the individual's gender identity.[2] Gender expression typically reflects a person's gender identity, but this is not always the case.[3][4] While a person may express behaviors, attitudes, and appearances consistent with a particular gender role, such expression may not necessarily reflect their gender identity. The term gender identity was coined by psychiatry professor Robert J. Stoller in 1964 and popularized by psychologist John Money.[5][6][7] In most societies, there is a basic division between gender attributes associated with males and females, a gender binary to which most people adhere and which includes expectations of masculinity and femininity in all aspects of sex and gender: biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.[8][9][10] Some people do not identify with some, or all, of the aspects of gender associated with their biological sex; some of those people are transgender, non-binary, or genderqueer. Some societies have third gender categories.[11] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

Possible? You were the one who made the assertion. You have no evidence for it. I thought I did. I think part of the issue is that it's hard for me to understand that you can't seem to grasp that different people have different definitions of certain words from your own. I have already played this dumb Wikipedia game with you already. I can certainly believe that I've tried to point out to you that large institutions have different definitions of words like male and female than your own. I'm beginning to think we can't make any further progress in this debate, since you refuse to acknowledge what any reasonable person can see- a large group of people have different definitions on terms like gender, male and female than your own.

So... its not a "recursive acronym" and yes you are trying to define the word with the word. Yes, it's not a recursive acronym, but it works in the same way. I've never seen the term recursive word, but I don't see why it can't be coined if it doens't yet exist. All words were created at some point. At this point, this notion you have that -I'm- trying to define these words is just comical. Even the FDA now defines gender as a social construct: ** In 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) started to use gender instead of sex to avoid confusion with sexual intercourse.[28] Later, in 2011, the FDA reversed its position and began using sex as the biological classification and gender as "a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual's gender presentation."[29] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender In my search for information on all of this, I believe I've found a category for people like you who refuse to recognize this new reality: the anti-gender movement. Quoting from Wikipedia's page on this movement: ** The anti-gender movement is a global phenomenon that opposes concepts often referred to as "gender ideology" or "gender theory." These terms lack a clear, consistent definition but are commonly used by the movement to critique a range of issues related to gender equality, LGBT rights, and gender studies. Originating in the late 20th century, the movement has drawn support from far-right and right-wing populist groups, conservative religious organizations, and social conservatives worldwide. It views advances in gender inclusion and LGBT rights as threats to traditional family structures, religious values, and established social norms. ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement

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. 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.

We already have a way to know someones biological sex. We call them men and women, males and females. You're really not absorbing what I'm saying. Anyone who's reasonable who read the post of mine you're responding to would know that. I'll leave you with the following Wikipedia quote for you to ponder over: ** 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

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.

Hubris and social rot. That's it? I feel like I'm debating with a grade schooler who thinks "I know you are, but what am I" is the way to win a debate -.- You can feel anyway you like. True. I can also point out that it's clear that you're pushing your agenda, not listening to what people who disagree with you have to say. I wrote a long post explaining my stance on a subject and all you had to say to it was "Hubris and social rot". It's my hope that one day, agenda pushers like yourself will be a thing of the past and people will listen to each other instead of just insulting those they disagree with in order to silence dissent from their points of view.

Yes, if we're on an endless journey to equalize rights, we should stop saying there's so much further to go, since it's meaningless. We're not stopping, then. If that's the case, are we supposed to focus on such matters with equal intensity at all times? What is the appetite for political change in such a case? Should we just keep adding issues to the list forever? As inarticulate and ignorant as Chuds are, they have stumbled onto something that necessarily requires attention: class consciousness. And that discussion needs bandwidth, at the expense of the debate about, for example, straight people are bigoted for not having sex with trans people... I decided to do an online search for the meaning of class consciousness. Here's the introduction to Wikipedia's definition of the term: ** In Marxism, class consciousness is the set of beliefs that persons hold regarding their social class or economic rank in society, the structure of their class, and their common class interests.[1][2] According to Karl Marx, class consciousness is an awareness that is key to sparking a revolution which would "create a dictatorship of the proletariat, transforming it from a wage-earning, propertyless mass into the ruling class".[3] Although Marxists tend to focus on class consciousness (or its absence) among the proletariat, the upper classes in society can also think and act in a class-conscious way. As Leonard Fein pointed out, "The very rich have been well aware of their class privilege and have labored mightily to protect and defend it".[4][5] For example, Warren Buffett has demonstrated class consciousness: "There's class warfare, all right... but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."[6] ** I assume this is what you're referring to. You say that it requires attention. I suspect you mean you think we should focus more on issues of class? As to your second argument that we shouldn't have a debate on whether straught people are bigotted for now having sex with trans people, I agree that that's not a subject worth discussing. I think most if not everyone here would agree that who they choose to date generally doesn't involve bigotism, just sexual preferences. Everyone has their own sexual orientation and preferences and as to where that type of thing should be discussed, I think that's best between people who are in a romantic relationship.

It's not left versus right. Left versus right is about power dynamics between the ruling class and workers. Could you elaborate on these power dynamics? I suspect it's not quite as simple as you make it sound, although I certainly agree with you that identiy politics warriors aren't Marxists, at least not by default. I certainly don't consider myself a Marxist at any rate. I'm not saying that Karl Marx didn't have some interesting things to say, but I identify more with terms that are more in use today- I've liked the term progressive, but I've also seen it used in ways that I don't like, so there's that.