Scott75

So here we get to the problem. You don't just want people to be able to identify as they like. You want others to accept this identity and be compelled by law to promote their lie. And it is a lie, a man is not a woman just like it would be a lie for me to demand i identify as a minor and try to ride the bus for free or for a 30 year old to say he identifies as a 65 year old and demand his canada pension In the case of transgender people, it all depends on how we define a man and a woman. For those who define a man or a woman as whoever identifies as such, then transgender people are the gender they identify with. The problem, ofcourse, is that some people, such as yourself, don't want to define transgender people as belonging to the gender they identify with. Ultimately, I believe that this type of thing will get resolved in favour of the transgender community, but I'm not sure how long it will take.

They can do whatever they want. They can do that right now. So mission accomplished you're done No, they really can't. Wikipedia has a page on transgender rights. The opening paragraph outlines the challenges many transgender people face: ** The legal status of transgender people varies greatly around the world. Some countries have enacted laws protecting the rights of transgender individuals, but others have criminalized their gender identity or expression. In many cases, transgender individuals face discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, and other areas of life. ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_transgender_people True, there's also the issue of them being identified by others as the gender they associate with.

Yes, that is your problem. Not mine. Not societies. One you are creating and pushing. I am not ignoring it, I am soundly rejecting it. 1- 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. 2- I didn't "create" this problem, it's one that predates my birth. Nor am I "pushing" it. I'm simply pointing it out. 3- I think a better word for what you're doing isn't rejecting the problem, so much as denying the fact that it exists. But that won't change the fact that it does in fact exist.

That's pretty much what your side's been doing since the beginning. And I agree it hasn't helped your case at all I can agree that my side's been making some erroneous and insulting assertions as well, but as I was taught in grade school, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

No, I'm just pointing out that making erroneous and insulting assertions aren't going to help move the actual topic of this thread forward. But that's the entire M.O. of @User As User essentially pointed out somewhat crudely in post #682, I was responding to CdnFox, not User. Regardless, though, I don't feel that's the truth for User or even CdnFox. I do feel that CdnFox really resorts far too much to insults when he disagrees with someone, which really doesn't help move a discussion forward.

Or just 'male'. Worked for the last 3000 years or so. Times change. Saying that someone is straight, or heterosexual, only means that someone is attracted to the "opposite sex or gender", according to Wikipedia. It says nothing about the type of male or female they are. Nonsense. I myself am cisgender. It's just an easy way to differentiate between people who are biologically of a given sex but identify as the opposite gender. As I've mentioned in the past, it's not a word I use often. I haven't used the spanish term for it once in the 3 years that I've been staying in Mexico. But if I ever felt the need to differentiate between someone who identifies as the same gender as their sex, I now at least know the word to use.

As I have said many times before, you are the one here making these arguments. I am responding to what you say. We already have a way to know someones biological sex. We call them men and women, males and females. If there is someone who believes they are something they are not and wants to role play, we call them trans. As I've said before, a good amount of people, including myself, have decided to expand our definitions of words like men and women, males and females, to include trans people within those definitions. You may not like the fact that I and others have done this, but we've done this all the same and pretending it hasn't happened just shows that you're in denial of this fact.

If you want to go back and dig up long past posts, then go back to quote them all. I am not playing this dumb game where you pick out things long past to try to revisit. I re-read what you wrote in post #453 and I think I get it now. It's right there, in the second sentence. You thought I was "here wanting us to use different definitions of the words". It -seems- that you are actually recognizing that these words actually -have- different definitions, but you keep on denying that they do despite all the evidence to the contrary, so I'll let you decide what you meant.

You haven't provided any evidence that what I am arguing for is "absurd and nonsensical". Yes, you tried to define a term with the term. That is absurd and nonsensical. I don't think so, and clearly a lot of other people don't either. It's basically like a recursive acronym, only it's a word instead. As I've said in the past, I think there are other recursive words as well, such as democrat and republican. Ultimately, the way most people identify a democrat or a republican is if they themselves identify as such. Some may ofcourse be sticklers and claim that a democrat or a republican is only such if they are a card carrying member, but most people aren't so strict.

I don't think so. I will read them but that's not the same as engaging. Not to say that I never do it. Well, like I said in my previous post, I do have doubts sometimes as to whether it's worth it, and there may come another time when I decide that responding to other posts, possibly in other forums, is more worth my time, at least temporarily. But I definitely think the issues we're discussing are quite important and unfortunately, I don't know of a better place to discuss them with people who disagree with my own viewpoints on some of these things.

Yes, and as for the example you submit... There are plenty of good sources to to fuel the discussion posted here also. Also, it's worth pointing out.... I do not have a closed mind on this topic because the science itself is still open, or rather the public health framework. The UK is not certain about what's being done, and my aforementioned interview points out that groupthink has led to some young people being treated without adequate review. But because I refuse to attack the medical profession, parents and so on, I am treated with disrespect. Fair enough, you don't have to respect me. But why should I talk to you in that case? It's such a head Scratcher. And arrogant too. Nobody is owed a response. I agree that no one is owed a response. And as I've mentioned, there are some responses I've gotten, in particular from CdnFox, that are so egregious, that even I don't respond, other than perhaps with a report of harassment. For me, I think the main issue is that in a lot of posts, even some with insults in them, there are points that I think should be addressed. I fully concede that I do have doubts as to whether I should be the one doing the addressing. As a matter of fact, earlier on, I took almost a month long break from responding to anyone in this thread. I'm active in other online forums and there were some subjects in other forums that temporarily got me to prioritize them. But I did eventually come back.

I imagine you only looked at what I wrote in the post of mine that I linked to, not the nested quotes in said post. Perhaps the following post, which was one of the nested quotes, will help jog your memory as to your flip flopping: Nope. If you want to accuse me of flip-flopping, then let's see the flip and then the flop you are specifically calling out. I went and looked at the post I referenced above. The post itself, with its nested quotes, certainly seemed to support my assertion, but when I looked at the quote one post -before- the included quotes, it made me wonder if perhaps you are right. That is, I'm beginning to think that it's possible you've never acknowledged that there is more than one definition for terms like male and female. This, despite the fact that well known sources of information such as Wikipedia make it clear that there is in fact more than one definition. The definitions that you have such a hard time accepting exists is spelled out on Wikipedia articles on male and female: ** In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender, in the social sense of gender role or gender identity.[7] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male ** 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

I don't know why people continue to engage with my posts when they think I'm an immoral liar. This is about a discussion board. You have to have a modicum of respect in order to engage with someone, and clearly they don't so I ignore them. For my part, I have liked posts from the fox and the user. They make good points from time to time. I don't think they're liars but I don't see the point of discussing with them if they think I'm an immoral liar 🤔 As to your first paragraph, I don't think I've ever had hard evidence that someone is -trying- to deceive someone else in an online forum, unless you count sarcastic posts. So I've never had to ask myself if someone who I believe is trying to deceive me and/or others would be worth responding to. Perhaps they think that by responding and accusing you and others here of being immoral liars, they are warning virtuous posters? As to your second paragraph, I think you may be right in regards to having to have some respect for someone in order to engage with someone. What I feel strongly about is to -not- engage in the types of personal attacks that they engage in. All such personal attacks do is distract from the actual subject of the thread. At worst, this may actually be the goal, whether conscious or unconscious. I've dealt with a lot of controversial subjects and I wouldn't be surprised if some posters who've disagreed with me would prefer to silence me then truly deal with the points I'm making. As to your third paragraph, I agree that CdnFox and User have made some good points. I think the best example is the issue of minors getting hormones/hormone blockers/trans surgery. I think their largest problems are that they have strong penchants for jumping to erroneous conclusions, with CdnFox engaging in a lot of personal attacks. Despite these drawbacks, I still think that it's worth engaging with their posts, although I do draw the line at some especially egregious posts with some pretty nasty personal attacks. I think a big part of it is that they're not the only people who post in this forum. I think I get recharged from seeing posts from those on 'my side' in any given thread.

So that's THREE accounts you have here Apparently your delusion that I had 2 accounts here wasn't enough -.-

I use perjoratives on agenda pushers. I always have and I always will. If this conversation is to move forward, I think we need to agree on what an agenda pusher -is-. I went looking online for a definition and found this one in some small forum: ** It means that you are forcing/pushing other people to accept your opinions, actions, values while disregarding theirs. ** Source: https://hinative.com/questions/20350859 I we can agree to that definition, I would argue that I've done a -lot- of listening to other people's opinions, actions and values, and I've done it -without- resorting to personal attacks. Anyway, given the above definition, I find what you say -after- your above comment to be particularly ironic. Quoting what you said after below: ** Agenda pushers are aggressive and highly obnoxious, so if you can't handle the pushback then it's best to just walk away and self-insultate. ** It almost sounds like you know you're an agenda pusher and you just engaged in a freudian slip.

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 -.-

Personally, I think that everyone matters, even people like you who say things like this. No you don't. If I were to ask you to provide evidence for your assertion, I imagine you'd say that you don't need to provide proof (which I never asked for) and call it a day. Yet another unsubstantiated assertion. These ad hominem attacks of yours are a real disgrace. You're the disgrace here you narcissistic uneducated talking point robot. [more insults follow] You certainly provide ample evidence that you have a real penchant for character assasination.

I'm going to assume you meant something like "Dude" instead of "Do". Anyway, you haven't provided any evidence that I've been dishonest. 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.

You've been dishonest. A number of times. And we don't have to provide proof. I didn't ask for proof, I asked for -evidence-. Now, you could say that you don't need to provide evidence either, and that's certainly true. It's just that people who make assertions without evidence to back them up aren't credible.

This isn't about changing anyone, this is about what labels we use for different categories of people. Secondly, I'm not advocating that terms like cisgender be used all the time, quite the reverse, I think they should be used sparingly, in situations where knowing whether someone is cisgender or transgender is important. The same goes for people who are transgender. In other cases, simply using the gender a person identifies with is sufficient. It's about changing EVERYONE. No, it's not. How we categorize/label people doesn't change who they are. First of all, they're not "my" terms. As has been mentioned in this thread before, cisgender is a term that was coined by a biologist back in 1994, and has since gained fairly widespread acceptance. Wikipedia details the term's growing acceptance since its inception: ** Academic use Medical academics use the term and have recognized its importance in transgender studies since the 1990s.[15][16][17] After the terms cisgender and cissexual were used in a 2006 article in the Journal of Lesbian Studies[18] and Serano's 2007 book Whipping Girl,[19] the former gained further popularity among English-speaking activists and scholars.[20][21][22] Cisgender was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015, defined as "designating a person whose sense of personal identity corresponds to the sex and gender assigned to him or her at birth (in contrast with transgender)".[23] Perspectives on History states that since this inclusion, the term has increasingly become common usage.[11] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

Yes, you are fighting biology. You're saying that biology is no longer the sole determinant of sex. No, I'm not. I, along with a lot of other people, have simply separated a person's biological sex with a person's gender. If knowing a person's biological sex is important, one can ask them their biological sex, or, if they have identified as a male or female, by asking them if they are cisgender or transgender. There is also the fact that some people are born intersex. In case you haven't heard of the term: ** Intersex people are individuals born with any of several sex characteristics, including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies".[1][2] Sex assignment at birth usually aligns with a child's external genitalia. The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 1:4,500–1:2,000 (0.02%–0.05%).[3] Other conditions involve the development of atypical chromosomes, gonads, or hormones.[4][2] Some persons may be assigned and raised as a girl or boy but then identify with another gender later in life, while most continue to identify with their assigned sex.[5][6][7] The number of births where the baby is intersex has been reported differently depending on who reports and which definition of intersex is used. Anne Fausto-Sterling and her book co-authors claim the prevalence of "nondimorphic sexual development" in humans might be as high as 1.7%.[8][9] However, a response published by Leonard Sax reports this figure includes conditions such as late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia and Klinefelter syndrome, which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex; Sax states, "if the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", stating the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018% (one in 5,500 births), about 100 times less than Fausto-Sterling's estimate.[4][10][11] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex First of all, do you have evidence that this is true? I have the national election as evidence. The American national elections are only evidence that more voting Americans preferred Trump over Kamala.

It's irrelevant what people longer do. You can comprehend can't you that if 100 people agree a pig is a horse that doesn't mean the pig is actually a horse? There is an old story attributed to Abraham Lincoln where he asked in a meeting how many legs a dog has if you count the dogs tail as a leg. When they said 5 he said a tail isnt a leg. Why do you people think we all must agree with this stupidity? You seem to be asserting that calling a transgender man a man is the same thing as calling a tail a leg. I don't agree with that assertion. Furthermore, it's quite clear that there is a growing group of people that support transgender people to use the gender they identify with. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that, so long as there are words to differentiate between transgender and cisgender individuals if there's a need to know a person's biological sex is.

The word "Tranny" fits. It fits because the trannies have gotten aggressive. They've planted their flag at the top of the democrat party and they want the entire planet embracing their agenda. This kind of behavior justifies everything we throw at them. For the audience, I've already responded to Deluge's first 2 sentences in post #764. Bottom line, insulting people you disagree with is generally not the best way to resolve differences. As to his notion that they've "planted their flag at the top of the democrat party", it's the first time I've even heard this claim. As to his notion that they "want the entire planet embracing their agenda", I haven't seen any evidence that the transgender community even -has- a unified agenda, other than being accepted for who they are.

Yeah, CdnFox really goes for character assassination a lot. I think he's currently the -only- poster here where I've come to the decision that some of his posts addressed to me really aren't worth responding to.

I imagine you're referring to the following interview: https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/bonus-interview-youth-gender-clinician-731 I haven't listened to it as of yet, just thought it'd be good to put up in case I or someone else would like to listen to it in the future.