Scott75

It's a massive exaggeration. I'm always down for change if it's for the better. Well that's certainly good to hear. I'm not even sure what that means. What I want is for people to be able to define their gender as the gender they identify with. I also think that being more accepting of people who don't fit inside the conventional norms for gender could go a long way to making trans people not feel the need for hormones/hormone blockers and surgery and just be fine with the appearance that their biological sex gives them.

1. Shouldn't that say "I'm not homosexual, I'm normal ?" I don't think so. I think the point Dana was trying to make is that back in the day, people took offense to the term heterosexual, but now it's become normal and that eventually, the same will happen with the term cisgender. I think Dana would agree with you? To be honest, I'm not really sure what the issue is here, so I can't be sure :-p. Lol :-). To be fair, it wasn't me, it was Dana. Dana's certainly sounded righteous, but that doesn't mean she's right on that point. Honestly, I haven't looked into a lot of this 'patriarchy' business and I definitely think that some feminists can go too far.

I don't know if anyone is here to play games. I -do- believe that when people start insulting a person's views or worse, the person themselves, that it greatly impedes any productive discussion. At that point, I don't care whether they are conservative, liberal or something else, the result for me is the same, the quality of the conversation goes down. No, the quality of the conversation drops when dishonesty makes its first appearance. I've certainly seen various people from both sides of this debate accuse their ideological opponents of dishonesty. I myself haven't seen any evidence of anyone -trying- to deceive anyone else. There's a very big difference between being mistaken and trying to deceive others. I entered this thread in post #10. You responded to me in post #18. As to your first question, for some reason, I wasn't able to participate in the poll. Perhaps that's just as well though, because given the nature of this thread, I think it would have been better to replace "I am a man" and "I identify as a man" with "I'm a cisgender man" and "I'm a transgender man". In any case, I'm a cisgender man. As to your second question, as I told someone else (User, I believe), my definition of a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. And yes, I know, this definition includes the word itself. A lot of people are fine with that, but I know that some aren't and I imagine you're one of those people. If you want to know a person's biological sex and believe it wouldn't be inappropriate to ask, you can ask them that instead.

And there's zero thought in that. No, Radiorum just wrote a few paragraphs on the history of the term Cisgender. It's one thing to disagree with a person, another thing entirely to dismiss the work they've put into their posts. No, what Radiorum said was quite accurate. Dana Defosse, the biologist who coined the term cisgender, still speaks about it. Here's a good excerpt on what she's had to say in a recent article: ** While I only intended cisgender to be a neutral term, people may sometimes be intimidated by the word because its universal acceptance reifies the fact that everyone has a gender identity. As scholar Kirby Conrod explains, the term gives voice to the unspoken and previously unnamed assumption of normality that accompanies having a gender identity consistent with the expectations afforded by the sex assigned at birth. Language defining people by their difference is used to reinforce power relations. As Conrod points out, consider how often speakers predicate others’ identities — the woman pilot, the trans musician, the African American senator. Refusal to accept naming the gender identity of the vast majority of society preserves that veneer of normalcy, as in the “I’m not cisgender, I’m normal” trope. This is the same as saying, “I’m not heterosexual, I’m normal.” The word cisgender is shunned because it challenges the false narrative that gender identity depends on biological sex. This is a pivotal paradigm of patriarchy, ensuring that the male gender confers an inherent justification for power over others. The fallacy of the inseparability of sex and gender is inherent in misogyny, and the perpetuation of heteronormativity, cisnormativity and oppressive forms of procreation. ** Full article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/elon-musk-cisgender-twitter-trans-18171527.php

First off, wrong account you forgot to switch Yet another one of your unsubstantiated assertions/insults I imagine, wasting everyone's time. I -know- you can do better, but recently you've gotten bogged down in this trash talk. Except everyone who doesn't. Really CdnFox, can't you see how banal your comments here have become?

Lol, the best defense is an offense ... but try making it believable next time. You're not fooling anyone. I think he may actually be fooling a few, including himself. It reminds me of a great saying: "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" :-p.

I think this statement is so obviously untrue that it's best to just quote it and let others decide for themselves who they want to believe. They have. I agree. Now hopefully we can get back to discussing the actual topic of this thread.

Your latest unsubstantiated assertion made me smile. I believe Yoda said it well: In other words I correctly pointed out Your hypocrisy And now you are buthurt and can't refute the point so for some reason you're going to resort to quoting Muppets. 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.

Try reading and responding to my whole comment next time: Alright, I've read your whole comment now and I can only see one assertion you believe that I've made and haven't defended- a "Democrat and Republican" assertion. By all means, quote me on this assertion you claim I've made.

Yes, this continues to be your dumb game. What is this "dumb game" that you think I'm playing? The problem is that different groups of people define men and women differently. You seem to think that ignoring this will just make the problem disappear, but it won't. As I've stated elsewhere, I generally -don't- use that word. I've been living in Mexico for the past 3 years and until just now, I didn't even know whether there was a Spanish translation for the term. I've never needed to know. In any case, I looked it up, and there is in fact a Spanish translation for it. The word is only needed if one is trying to determine whether someone gender identifies with their biological sex or not. There are longer ways to say the same thing, such as "biological male who identifies as a male". It's a lot longer but I'm guessing this could work for people who are offended by the term cis.

I'm not sure how I first heard of Mary Talley Bowden, but she strikes me as a doctor who stuck to her guns despite the Covid narrative machine going after her. She and other doctors recently settled a lawsuit with the FDA in regards to Ivermectin: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/27/health/fda-ivermectin-lawsuit/index.html Anyway, I've been following her substack for a bit, and I thought that some here may find her recent free article to be interesting. Quoting some of it below: ** When COVID patients started trickling into my office March 2020, I saw my role as primarily one of a bystander. Watching the news, I assumed all the chaos would land in the hospitals - I was a solo ENT with a very quiet practice, and though I was happy to help if I could, I never imagined I would become embroiled in the forefront of a war. I didn’t stay on the sidelines for long. Because I’m an upper respiratory tract specialist - and one of the few that didn’t close my doors - I became a haven in my community for patients seeking outpatient treatment for COVID. I started with hydroxychloroquine, but after President Trump mentioned it as an option, the Texas State Board of Pharmacy prohibited doctors from prescribing it for COVID. I then used monoclonal antibodies with great success, but, in an effort to get the mRNA shot in every arm, the government took over and then shut down distribution. During the third and largest surge of the pandemic - when I no longer had access to monoclonal antibodies - I turned to ivermectin, and that’s when things got complicated. [snip] Misdirection is a common war tactic and form of propaganda, a technique used to distract attention away from a topic. Thanks to the efforts of MAHA, all eyes have shifted to dropping the Robert F Kennedy nuclear bomb onto the food industry, while our more immediate and severe threat - mRNA manufacturers - strengthen their forces. I, along with many others, can’t help but wonder if BigPharma orchestrated this sudden change in focus and if the Means siblings are being used - knowingly or unknowingly - to drive this change. Several weeks ago, I sat down with Calley Means and Jack Kruse on the Danny Jones podcast and had the opportunity to ask him directly - on camera - his views on COVID and the mRNA shots. The show will air on December 25th or 26th. Stay tuned! ** Full article: https://drbowden.substack.com/p/is-maha-a-misdirection-strategy?publication_id=607316&post_id=152373189&isFreemail=true&r=z34xz&triedRedirect=true

If you think that you can have a fruitful discussion with DUI or any of these other cultists then you're out of your mind. I definitely do, but to be fair, I'm not always right wing. You may remember that I have a decidedly more left wing stance when it comes to other issues, such as in the "Are you a man or a woman?" thread. I -suspect- this may have helped in my conversation with DUI here. I also noted that he actually apologized for going overboard with you, in post #67 in this thread. I'll quote him: Anyway, continuing with your post: I think you know you're preaching to the choir when it comes to the Covid narrative with me. I actually suspect you think I go too far :-p. But that doesn't mean I think we should treat our ideological opponents with insults just because they do it to us. As the old saying goes, "An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind". I'm personally in favour of preserving my eyes :-p.

You may want to cite an impartial news outlet. The CHD has an agenda that is totally bias, and is pushing a debunked 1998 study. I just presented a lot of evidence that the study in question was not debunked, but smeared. This in turn would mean that, far from CHD being biased, it's an oasis of objective news on the subject of vaccines in a desert of lies. No idea where you got that rumour from. According to Wikipedia, RFK Jr. has claimed that he had been told by a doctor that he -had- a worm in his brain, but that it died. Quoting from Wikipedia's entry: ** Kennedy began experiencing severe short- and long-term memory loss and mental fog in 2010. In a 2012 divorce court deposition, he attributed neurological issues to "a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died", in addition to mercury poisoning from eating large quantities of tuna.[383][387] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr. This wasn't some off hand remark, but part of a deposition he gave: ** Several doctors noticed a dark spot on the younger Mr. Kennedy’s brain scans and concluded that he had a tumor, he said in a 2012 deposition reviewed by The New York Times. Mr. Kennedy was immediately scheduled for a procedure at Duke University Medical Center by the same surgeon who had operated on his uncle, he said. While packing for the trip, he said, he received a call from a doctor at New York-Presbyterian Hospital who had a different opinion: Mr. Kennedy, he believed, had a dead parasite in his head. The doctor believed that the abnormality seen on his scans “was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died,” Mr. Kennedy said in the deposition. ** Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/rfk-jr-brain-health-memory-loss.html

In 2005, an investigative reporter alerted The Lancet's editors that Wakefield's study had been flawed by severe research misconduct, conflict of interests, and probably falsehood. After investigating the matter, The Lancet retracted the article, and the British Medical Association took disciplinary actions against Wakefield. [snip] source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5789217/ The theory that vaccines cause Autism, was disproven 20 years ago. No, though that is certainly what the government and corporate owned media would have you believe. The truth is another matter entirely. A good article on the subject: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/betrayal-of-public-trust-institutional-corruption-vaccine-safety-ratings-vaccine-science-falsified-intro/ Quoting from it: ** Sharav’s Introduction: I have undertaken this review of the case against Dr. Andrew Wakefield because the issues involved are far more consequential than the vilification of one doctor. The issues, as I see them, involve (a) collusion of public health officials to deceive the public by concealing scientific evidence that confirms empirical evidence of serious harm linked to vaccines – in particular polyvalent vaccines; (b) the “willful blindness” by the medical community as it uncritically fell in line with a government dictated vaccination policy driven by corporate business interests. Public health officials and the medical profession have abrogated their professional, public, and human responsibility, by failing to honestly examine the iatrogenic harm caused by expansive, indiscriminate, and increasingly aggressive vaccination policies. On a human level, the documented evidence shows a callous disregard for the plight of thousands of children who suffer irreversible harm, as if they were unavoidable “collateral damage”. All of the documented evidence and testimonies submitted to the General Medical Council, upon which GMC issued its guilty verdicts against Dr. Wakefield and his two co-defendants in 2010, were subsequently forensically assessed by the UK High Court in March 2012, in the appeal of Professor John Walker-Smith, the senior clinician and senior author of the Lancet case series. The High Court determined that the verdicts of professional misconduct and ethics violations were unsupported by the evidence. Indeed, the adjudicated evidence refutes the case against Dr. Wakefield; the documents and testimonies demonstrate that there is no evidence whatsoever, to support the charges of professional misconduct, much less the accusation of fraud. The accusation of fraud was hurled by the Editor-in-Chief of the BMJ, a medical journal whose corporate ownership is intertwined with the vaccine manufacturing Behemoths, Merck – with whom BMJ signed a partnership agreement in 2008 – and GlaxoSmithKline which provides additional financial support to BMJ. Among their numerous vaccine products, Merck and GSK manufacture the MMR vaccine. My commentary is buttressed with details from the High Court decision (2012); transcripts of testimony before the General Medical Council (2007- 2010); documents and testimony that have been judicially adjudicated; the sworn deposition of the Deputy Editor of the BMJ with internal BMJ emails(2012); internal correspondence by CDC officials and CDC-commissioned scientists (2000-2009, some uncovered in 2011; new documents obtained in July 2017); the suppressed finding of CDC’s first large-scale epidemiological study (1999) and a transcript of the closed door meeting of the Epidemic Intelligence Service at Simpsonwood (2000); a transcript of the closed meeting of the US Institute of Medicine Committee on Immunization Safety Review (2001); the U.S. Grand Jury criminal indictment of Dr. Poul Thorsen (2011); transcripts of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (1988); a confidential report Re: Infanrix hexa submitted by GlaxoSmithKline to the European Medicines Agency (2012) documenting sudden infant deaths; Cochrane Collaboration MMR reviews (2003, 2005, 2012); HHS Inspector General investigation report – CDC advisory panel corruption (2009); CDC scientists letter of complaint about “rogue interests” “questionable and unethical practices” (2016). **

A biological woman can't procreate without a biological man's sperm. But for people who define men and women as people who identify as such, a woman could in fact procreate with another woman's sperm- it's just that this other woman would have to biologically be a man and identify as a woman. This actually turned into a real life issue not too long ago: N.J. trans prisoner who impregnated 2 inmates transferred to men's facility | NBC News There are certainly laws of nature, but those laws don't include words. Words are defined by groups of people and can mean whatever said groups want them to mean. Lol...the hubris of this is fckin' monumental. Your article proves that. What do you think my article proves? As I said...monumental hubris. In your article and your argument, what's to stop the following fron happening? 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. As to what's to stopping things like the video you linked to from happening, I think the police officer made a pretty compelling case why a person identifying as a cat doesn't work if you're driving a car.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on that point. Agreed. But in the meantime, I'll be here to listen to any arguments you may have for mainstreaming trannies. Well, for starters, it'd probably help bring awareness to the fact that using the term tranny/trannies is now generally considered offensive: ** 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 To be fair, I myself didn't know it was offensive until I looked up the term.

That is not what you are here doing. You are here wanting us to use different definitions of the words to accommodate these delusions. You always want to make this about me, when this issue is so clearly much larger than me. You are the one here making these arguments. I am not making the issue about you. I am responding to the absurd and nonsensical things you are here arguing for. You haven't provided any evidence that what I am arguing for is "absurd and nonsensical". In composing this post, I went through the posts in the nested quotes above and I found something that I think was interesting. Back in post #433, I said the following to explain why I believe it makes sense to allow people to define themselves as the gender they identify with, which you quoted: ** My reasoning is fairly simple- some people who are born of one biological gender identify as the other one socially. ** The beginning of your response was this: ** That is not what you are here doing. You are here wanting us to use different definitions of the words to accommodate these delusions. ** I focused in on the fact that you seemed to think this was all about me, but there was another element I didn't address at all, which was your contention that "that" was not what I was doing. What is it that you think I wasn't doing? The reason I think this is important is because I said a lot more in the post you were responding to then the one sentence that included the bit that "some people who are born of one biological gender identify as the other one socially". Here is the complete paragraph of what I said: ** My reasoning is fairly simple- some people who are born of one biological gender identify as the other one socially. Now, we can accept this fact, or we can harass them to the point that they come to think they need to get hormones/hormone blockers and surgery just so that they can look more like the biological gender they identify with. I for one thing this is a terrible tragedy, one that I believe could frequently be avoided if we'd just let people identify with social gender they believe they belong to. As well as letting some identify as the gender neutral "they" and recognizing the gender neutral single person Spivak pronouns, which I personally find is better as it avoids wondering if people are referring to 1 or more people when saying "they". ** I've seen some of the posters here talk about hormones/hormone blockers and surgery as generally bad things and the thing is, I've always been fairly sympathetic to that viewpoint. I've certainly stated that I don't think that minors should be using them and I'm even skeptical that it's truly the best solution for many adults. But it all comes back to, why do people of any age feel that these things are necessary? I've come to think that it's precisely because many people who identify as trans don't feel that they can be accepted if they don't conform to gender norms and so they start to think that their best choice is to get the hormones/hormone blockers and/or surgery. The key, I think, is to be less rigid on gender norms- the first step may be to allow people to define themselves as the gender they identify with.

I have already addressed this bad argument of yours. A democrat is not defined as someone who identifies as a democrat. That depends on what definition is being used. No, it doesn't. None of the definitions you provided say that a Democrat is merely someone who identifies as a Democrat. True, but some of the definitions I -did- provide are so inclusive that it'd certainly be easier to simply identify a Democrat as someone who identifies as a Democrat. If we simply went by some of the definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, I think we'd be hard pressed to find people in the U.S. who -weren't- Democrats.

You can't even defend the lousy definition of the terms you want to use. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this one too. Nope. You are the one here pushing this madness. If you are not interested in defending it, stop. "Madness", eh? Your language betrays your mindset. What I'm concerned about is if it makes sense to continue to try to get you and others here to see certain things that you seem determined not to see. I was never hiding my mindset. It is absurd what you are trying to argue here. You are conflating a lack of agreement and acceptance of your nonsensical definitions and bad arguments with an inability to see. I can see just fine what you are doing and I soundly reject it. As I've said many times before, this isn't about me. What I find ironic is that before I started posting in this thread, I had some different points of view. For instance, I thought that J.K. Rowling was right when she made her famous tweet. But the more I got into this debate, the more I came to believe that she was slightly off. Certainly not so off that she deserved the blacklisting she got, but off in the sense that I now agree with the new definitions of terms like man and woman in that they should be for people who identify as such, and add terms like cisgender or transgender if knowing a person's biological sex is important.

I have not flip-flopped on anything. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this one. There is no agree to disagree. You accused me of something, you can't back it up, its that simple. I've already backed it up, you just didn't notice. If anyone else is intersted in the evidence I gathered on the subject, by all means take a look at the nested quotes in post #394 in this thread, which can be seen here: https://repolitics.com/forums/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=54465&content_commentid=1765873 All you did is link back to the same baseless assertion. LOL 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:

Flat earthers don't need coddling. Agreed. I don't believe anyone does, at least if we can agree on the definition of coddling. I found this one: "to treat with extreme or excessive care or kindness" Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coddle What I -do- believe is that people one disagrees with in a debate should be treated with respect. I believe the goal of debates should be to try to see why others disagree with one's own point of view and work towards a point where both sides are in agreement, not try to insult them to the point that they lose interest in what you have to say.

You responded with a quote from a lawyer, NOT medical experts, so you missed that. There's a difference between not responding the way you wanted me to and missing what you said. "the National Vaccine Compensation Program" is NOT RELEVANT to the findings of peer reviewed medical research which shows that vaccines do not cause increased rates of autism. The reason it's relevant is that it's concrete evidence that vaccines are causing harm sufficient enough to create a program for "dealing" with these harms. As to vaccines causing autism, I actually started a thread on whether or not vaccines can cause autism back in May of this year in another forum. It's here if you're interested: https://politicalhotwire.com/t/can-vaccines-cause-autism.283594/ Anyway, in the very first post, I linked to a website by an anonymous founder who makes some very interesting points. He even uses a capsed word in the introductory paragraph to his site, so perhaps you'll like that part. I'll quote from the website in question: ** The American Academy of Pediatrics FALSELY states that “Vaccines are not associated with autism.” Following is a list of abstracts from 234 papers demonstrating the multiple associations between vaccines and autism. Autism is a largely immune mediated condition, and the purpose of a vaccine is to change the behavior of the immune system. Vaccines and their ingredients can cause the underlying medical conditions that are commonly found in children who have been given an autism diagnosis. These conditions include immune system impairment, autoimmune conditions, neuroinflammation, gastrointestinal damage, neurological regression, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, glial cell activation, interleukin-6 secretion dysregulation, damage to the blood–brain barrier, seizures, dendritic cell dysfunction, mercury poisoning, aluminum toxicity, gene activation and alteration, glutathione depletion, impaired methylation, impaired thioredoxin regulation, impairment of the opioid system, cellular apoptosis, endocrine dysfunction, and other disorders. ** Source: https://howdovaccinescauseautism.org/ Now, I certainly don't claim to have read all the papers on his site- I haven't even counted them to make sure there are 234 of them. But I have read a few. The author of the site puts out 3 that they believe are representative of the body of research. They can be seen here: https://howdovaccinescauseautism.org/category/3-studies/

I cap words so you don't MISS THEM. Like you already did here: There are better ways to highlight text. I know a lot of legal documents still use them, but it's the wrong way to go about it. A good article on the subject is here: https://lu.is/2012/08/a-quick-note-on-conspicuous-text-also-known-as-all-caps/ As to "missing" words you wrote, I missed none of them. I saw all your words and then decided to respond in the way I did. Anyway, continuing... You've cited NO MEDICAL EXPERTS nor PEER REVIEWED published research. Because they DON'T BACK your CLAIMS. CHD Senior Staff Attorney Rolf Hazlehurst is NEITHER. Lawyers bring in medical experts if needed. I -hope- you're aware that the article was talking about court cases? Furthermore, did you click on any of the links in the article I quoted? Hell, did you even -know- of the National Vaccine Compensation Program?

How is it garbage, DUI? Why don't you want to know how many children were harmed, and how badly? Why are you afraid of a little knowledge? Very good points. I think you went overboard here, but it's understandable- the problem with insults is that it can be -very- difficult to resist responding in the same way. And when that really gets going, it tends to ruin productive discussions, unfortunately :-/.

I fully agree on the frustration. All we're left with is estimates from people who don't have a huge budget to do them. Still, they're quite sobering. Here's a worldwide estimate of how many people died at least in part due to the Covid vaccines: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaccines-17-million-deaths-covid-pandemic-excess-mortality/ As to the American share, I actually made a thread on that in another forum back in May, based on an article from a researcher that's done extensive research on the Covid vaccines. It can be seen here: https://politicalhotwire.com/t/google-ai-just-estimated-that-as-many-as-1-1m-americans-may-have-been-killed-by-the-covid-vaccines-steve-kirsch.283510/