Scott75

I believe I have, but if you believe there's a post where you believe I didn't respond properly to a source you or someone else gave me, by all means point it out. No, I'm pretty sure you didn't, but that doesn't matter anymore. Your response suggests you don't really have a high opinion of information sources. I don't have a high opinion of YOUR sources, for sure. Oh, that's a given, but you apparently don't even have a high opinion of your own. You say things like "You've been given links" and suggest I haven't gone through them, but when I challenge you on your assertion, you say that it "doesn't matter anymore." I suspect it never did. I suspect your primary source is your own opinion, objective evidence be damned.

Agreed, at least for the forseeable future in Israel. I think Zelensky knows at this point that the writing is on the wall. As I've said in the past, in Ukraine, the most likely outcomes are that Russia wins or the everyone loses (nuclear armageddon). I think the U.S. got the message around September and since then they've been making placating gestures to Ukraine while making it clear to Russia that they're not willing to risk nuclear war. At least I hope I'm right here. An article from Scott Ritter published in September got me to think this: SCOTT RITTER: 72 Minutes | Consortium News

You ignore the answers and they're all stronger than anything you've got, yet you keep flapping your cyber gums. What "answers" are you referring to?

Well no, that's kind of stupid. Yet another unsubstantiated assertion. I do that at times, if I think looking at that point in time is worth the trouble and I actually find the answer I'm looking for. Not everything is just an internet search away. You definitely seem to like using the word "stupid". Anyway, it seems that you're implying that I've ignored some question. If so, which question do you think I've ignored? First of all, what statements are you referring to?

But we have. Where? And your evidence for this is where?

Yet more unsubstantiated assertions. You're just reinforcing my point- what you do is easy. Backing up assertions isn't. No, your posting links without any thoughts of your own is easy. I've put a lot of thought into my posts, but I also back up many of my points with evidence picked up from various sources. Most of the time, you and others on your side of this debate don't actually post evidence of any kind, instead just voicing your opinions and calling it a day.

Posting links instead of actually engaging in a real argument is easy too. I clearly do both. You and people like you, on the other hand, tend to rely solely on what you already believe, and generally don't have much in the way of evidence to back up your beliefs. That depends on how you're defining substantiation. I think the second definition of substantiate from the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition is educational here: ** The act of substantiating or giving substance to anything; the act of proving; evidence; proof. ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/substantiation I can certainly agree that most if not all Wikipedia entries don't prove anything. They -do- provide evidence for things, though. Evidence is not proof, but it's the first step towards it. And it always beats having no evidence at all. Research is frequently defined as a very thorough afair, which in turn implies something that can't be done quickly. But there are some definitions of it that fit the bill here. One I particularly like is "inquire into", that one being from Princeton University. Whenever a term is under debate, I think it's good to inquire or look into well known sources to see what they have to say on the matter.

The very problem you are sitting here claiming you are solving. That there is some need for language to clarify what a real man is. No, we already have that language. Men are men and trans people are trans. Your solution only works if everyone defines a man as a biological man and a woman as a biological woman and perhaps do our best to simply ignore intersex people. I and many others think that's a bad solution, which is why we no longer define gender to only include people of a given biological gender, but rather anyone who identifies as that gender. Now, I know, this isn't the traditional way of doing things, and I also know that conservatives tend to love traditions, but sometimes, traditions hold us back from a better world. I believe this is one of those cases. I have in the past mentioned a recent animated film that I think gets into all of these concepts without the lengthy words. I think it has a very good metaphorical way of describing gender fluidity. It's called Nimonia and it's available on Netflix. Here's the trailer:

All you make is unsubstantiated assertions. No, that would generally be posts you and others like you make. Full of assertions, yet almost completely lacking in evidence for said assertions.

It's not a question of caring. It's a question of whether or not anything you say has value. If it contributes to a conversation or not or is just you being a pathetic little weasel. One thing I hope you learn one day- personal attacks never contribute to a discussion in a positive way. Your emotions are in control, not you.

Great, thank you :-). I've now explored other threads and realize that a lot of what I thought might not be allowed is actually happening already, although with some asterisks with words that I imagine might be stopped if they were used without them.

After looking at some threads like this one, I now realize that I'm not the only one who gets insulted (I was beginning to think everyone was reserving their insults for me or something -.-). Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, if I were American, I wouldn't have voted for either Kamala or Trump. That doesn't mean that I don't think that neither of them have -anything- good about them, just not good enough to make me feel like voting for either one would have been worth the trouble. I may well have voted for RFK Jr. if he'd stayed in the race, although even then I'm not sure, as his numbers were so low near the end that I may have also decided it wouldn't have been worth the trouble. Anyway, I'll try to just say what I most liked about the 2 main candidates rather then what I disliked about them: Trump: Looks like the most likely candidate to get out of Ukraine quickly. I've said in the past that when it comes to Ukraine, I believe that Russia will win or everyone will lose (nuclear armageddon). Some people have said that Russia taking Ukraine would only be the start, but I've seen no evidence that Russia even wants to take all of Ukraine, let alone another country. The more Ukraine continues to attack territory Russia now considers theirs though, the more likely Russia will in fact take over all of Ukraine, at least until Zelensky is gone, whereupon they might let go of western Ukraine. Kamala: She was pro choice, which I support. I watched both videos from popular youtuber Johnny Harris on the 2 main candidates. I think he was pretty good when it came to Trump's video, though I know that he's for the west's "support" of Ukraine, so ofcourse he mentioned nothing about the fact that Trump was the only candidate who seems set on getting out of there as soon as possible. As to Harris' video, again, I think it was good, although ofcourse he said nothing about the fact that she made no mention of leaving Ukraine anytime soon. The videos are here:

I'm sure the KKK said similar things about black people back in the day too. It's so easy to just say that some other group is wrong and use whatever means is necessary to try to put them "back in their lane", as you say. What's hard is to actually try to understand the other group's reasoning. People certainly said it about the Nazis and the fascists. He probably on the wrong side of that equation kiddo If you want to argue that transgender people and those who support some of their causes such as defining gender as anyone who identifies as said gender are somehow like the Nazis and the fascists, you're welcome to do so. However, I think it's worth pointing out that good arguments require good evidence.

It's allowed here assh*le. I guess I'll find out, as well as whether it's fine to call posters what you just called me. Regardless, it's sad when people stoop to such crass insults. But then, some people just never really got a decent education. A real shame. I actually joined this forum back in April, though I didn't post that much before I got into this thread. As to reporting to the mods, I think it's a good idea to try to see what type of insults are allowed in a forum, as this type of thing tends to get me to decide on how much I'd like to participate in said forum.

Except... you didn't do that. You used the term to define the term and then tried to claim the same thing is done with Democrat and Republican, when it is not. First of all, it would be nice if you'd acknowledge that I'm not the person who expanded the meanings gender terms. It was done long before I arrived on the scene and is now included in places like Wikipedia and some dictionaries. Secondly, it -is- done with Democrats and Republicans. A Democrat is someone who identifies as a Democrat, same thing with a Republican.

No. They are laws of nature. Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

That tweet doesn't explain -why- they were protesting. I'm still not sure about those in that New Delhi protest, but I suspect that Sikhs and Hindus weren't actually united, but actually both protesting various elements of the Canadian government. I think an article from the CBC gets into the various factors involved: Poilievre accuses Trudeau of sowing 'divisions' that led to Brampton's violent temple clash | CBC For the record, I haven't been a fan of Trudeau's government since all the covid mandates. I actually decided to leave Canada over 3 years ago, before the Trudeau government banned commercial air travel if you didn't get the covid vaccines.

Only if you were equally ready to answer questions when they're asked of you or respond to points of view as part of the discussion. If a person doesn't know the answer to a question, I think the best thing to do is to say that. If there's points of view that you believe I haven't responded to that doesn't involve personal attacks on me, by all means point them out.

You can do all of these things with gender terms as social constructs. The bottom line is that democrats and republicans are social constructs as well, with no tie to biology. You suggesting that being gay is a choice or that transgender is a choice? That seems to be what you're suggesting there and that certainly would change the discussion. I think most gays would disagree with you though No, that's not what I'm suggesting. There's a line I might have come up with that goes like this: "You can choose your actions, but not your attractions". This is why people frequently try to change what they're attracted to, to no avail. I was just reading of one such case, the actress Chloe Grace Moretz. Until around the time of the U.S. Federal Elections, I had no idea she was gay. Only reason I found out was because she made a post on instagram saying it openly. Anyway, I decided to read her Wikipedia page and found this: ** Moretz has publicly supported LGBT equality.[84] Moretz, who is gay, also has two gay brothers; Moretz states they had initially tried to "pray the gay away" to appease their community.[85] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloë_Grace_Moretz Ultimately, this is what all of this comes down to- community individuals such as yourself who are uncomfortable that some people have attractions and identities that don't conform to what you think is appropriate. It can lead to gay people trying to "pray the gay away" and conversion therapy. For those who are unfamiliar with that last term: ** Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of attempting to change an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to align with heterosexual and cisgender norms.[1] Methods that have been used to this end include forms of brain surgery, surgical or hormonal castration, aversive treatments such as electric shocks, nausea-inducing drugs, hypnosis, counseling, spiritual interventions, visualization, psychoanalysis, and arousal reconditioning. There is a scientific consensus that conversion therapy is ineffective at changing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity and that it frequently causes significant long-term psychological harm.[2] The position of current evidence-based medicine and clinical guidance is that homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender variance are natural and healthy aspects of human sexuality.[2][3] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy And last but perhaps not least, we have "Gender affirming surgery", something I think would be a lot less common if people would just accept the gender that people identify with without having to undergo such things.

Oh you're guessing are you. That's right. More personal attacks eh? At one point, I had hoped that our discussion could actually lead to something productive. With each foul mouthed thing you say, that hope dims.

I agree it definitely takes getting used to. Or we just don't. I guess that's another possibility. I think it's always dangerous to call other people's beliefs "stupidity", as no one likes being insulted, but we're just in an online forum here, so if there's only place to do it, it's probably here. Not sure if I can take credit for that. For all we know, Goddess may have just read Deluge's opening post, responded to that and called it a day.

No, i'm saying your replies are dishonest in the extreme. First of all, I was responding to User, not to you. Did you get confused? Secondly, saying that my replies are "dishonest in the extreme" is just one more unsubstantiated assertion in a long line of them. It gets tiring. Did you mean to say "bad etiquette"? In any case, if you don't like my posts, you don't have to respond to them. Instead, you're responding to them even when they're not addressed to you.

OK, great, even they are using the term in a political nonsensical way that has no real meaning now. I suspect we may have to agree to disagree on whether or not they are using them in a "nonsensical way". I'm just glad that you acknowledge that the Cambridge dictionary is now using them. I am not. As I've said before, anyone can say they have "logic, common sense, and reason on my side". What's harder is to provide evidence for one's assertions. Look, if you want to just make unsubstantiated assertions, that's your call to make. I personally prefer substantiated assertions.

You certainly assert they are "good" but have no ability to argue that. 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".

No, while I acknowledge the existence of your attempt to define these words in a nonsensical way, I do not accept that there is, in fact, another legitimate definition. First of all, I'm not attempting to define words like gender, male and female in more then one way. It was done long before I arrived on the scene to talk about it. As a matter of fact, it's gotten to the point where sources such as Wikipedia and some dictionaries are already doing it. That doesn't happen overnight. Anyway, thanks for explaining your current viewpoint in regards to the multiple definitions of these terms- according to you (and others I presume) there is one legitimate definition, and another illegitimate one. Fair enough. Whether you want to call some of the definitions for these words illegitimate or not, they're in Wikipedia and dictionaries, so I suspect you'll have to deal with them in your life, and not just from some online poster.