Scott75

Anyone can speak against vague abstractions such as "the left", but it won't [get] us anywhere productive. To get productive results, we need to talk about specifics. And it doesn't get more specific than two choices: a biological male and biological female. You should practice what you preach. As I've said elsewhere, there's actually a third possibility even when it comes to biological, which is intersex: Sex and gender: What is the difference? | Medical News Today And once we get into gender as a social construct, we have yet more possibilties.

No, your idea of acceptance is whatever the left-wing tells you. A person is either a biological male, or biological female - there is no deviation from this. Absolute balderdash. I actually thought that Trump might be slightly less bad than Kamala prior to his getting elected, because at least he seems to have the good sense to want to get out of Ukraine as quickly as possible.

Source provided. Where?

People need to be accepting without bending to the trans agenda, which is possible. The problem is that trans activists have gotten overly aggressive. They want more than just acceptance; they want full compliance with their agenda. As far as I know, you haven't even defined what you think the trans agenda -is-. How about you start there?

Then you weren't agreeing with me. lol There's no such thing as "sex assigned at birth" in a sane and normal world. You're either a boy or a girl at birth and everyone sees it. Not true: ** “Sex” refers to the physical differences between people who are male, female, or intersex. A person typically has their sex assigned at birth based on physiological characteristics, including their genitalia and chromosome composition. This assigned sex is called a person’s “natal sex.” ** Source: Sex and gender: What is the difference? | Medical News Today Note the word "typically". It's quite important, as people aren't -always- assigned a sex at birth. The article explains how things aren't always typical: ** Society often sees maleness and femaleness as a biological binary. However, there are issues with this distinction. For instance, the chromosomal markers are not always clear-cut. Some male babies are born with two or three X chromosomes, just as some female babies are born with a Y chromosome. Also, some babies are born with atypical genitalia due to a difference in sex development. This type of difference was once called a “disorder of sex development,” but this term is problematic. In a 2015 surveyTrusted Source, most respondents perceived the term negatively. A further review found that many people do not use it at all, and instead use “intersex.” **

It absolutely does not. male /māl/ adjective of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. "male children" There you go. That's one of the definitions. The other relates to gender. Wikipedia explains: ** Usage In humans, the word male can be used in the context of gender, such as for gender role or gender identity of a man or boy.[7] For example, according to Merriam-Webster, "male" can refer to "having a gender identity that is the opposite of female".[21] According to the Cambridge Dictionary, "male" can mean "belonging or relating to men".[22] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male

Again, it depends on how a given person defines the words man and woman. Only if you want to help someone fuel his fantasy. In the REAL world, we go by biological sex. The person is either a man or a woman. From what I've seen, the word sex itself, when used in a biological context, is generally sufficient. So, you can -usually- say that a person's sex is male and female. The key here, though, is usually. This is because of people who are intersex. Below is an article that gets into intersex people: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity/whats-intersex

We have that, they are called transgender. That certainly works when you want to identify people who are transgender. The problem occurs when you want to identify people who aren't. Cisgender works great to do this.

Wikipedia is trash. It's better to use this source: Cultural Marxism is a branch of Marxist ideology formulated by the Frankfurt School, which had its origins the early part of the twentieth century. Cultural Marxism comprises much of the foundation of political correctness and wokeism. It emerged as a response of European Marxist intellectuals disillusioned by the early political failures of conventional economic Marxist ideology.[1] Cultural Marxism was also opposed to Soviet Communism.[2] The central idea of Cultural Marxism is to soften up and prepare Western Civilization for economic Marxism after a gradual, relentless, sustained attack on every institution of Western culture,[3] including schools,[4] literature, art, film, the Judeo-Christian worldview, tradition, marriage and the family,[5] sexual mores, national sovereignty, etc.[6] The attacks are usually framed in Marxist terms as a class struggle between oppressors and oppressed; the members of the latter class allegedly include women, minorities, homosexuals, and adherents of non-Western ideologies such as Islam. Cultural Marxism has been described as "the cultural branch of globalism."[7] While Marx's Communist Manifesto focused on the alleged class struggle between bourgeois (owners of the means of production) and proletariat (workers), Marx did address culture, which he intimated would change after his economic vision was implemented. Patrick Buchanan argues that Cultural Marxism succeeded where Marx failed.[8] Marxism has permeated the American Left.[9] Among cultural Marxists, the book Dialectic of Enlightenment is considered to be a central text.[10][11] An effective way for cultural Marxists to influence the culture is to infiltrate schools and indoctrinate students, which the Democratic Socialists of America explicitly endorsed in 2018.[12] https://www.conservapedia.com/Cultural_Marxism Sources can't be refuted by simply saying that they are "trash". Nevertheless, I appreciate that your response didn't end there. I may not always agree wth conservative beliefs, but I appreciate the fact that you took the time to quote and link to a source that expresses them. Anyway, it's clear that there are wildly diverging takes on what cultural marxism means, as well as the people who use the term.

The term "Sex assignment" is politicized bullshit. It's best to stick with biological fact: If you're born with a penis, you're a boy. If you're born with a vagina, you're a girl. It's not, though. I suspect the reason it's used has to do with people who are intersex. From an article on the subject: ** Intersex is an umbrella term that describes bodies that fall outside the strict male/female binary. There are lots of ways someone can be intersex. What does intersex mean? Intersex is a general term used for a variety of situations in which a person is born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit the boxes of “female” or “male.” Sometimes doctors do surgeries on intersex babies and children to make their bodies fit binary ideas of “male” or “female”. Doctors always assign intersex babies a legal sex (male or female, in most states), but, just like with non-intersex people, that doesn’t mean that’s the gender identity they’ll grow up to have. This brings up questions about whether or not it’s OK to do medical procedures on children’s bodies when it’s not needed for their health. Being intersex is a naturally occurring variation in humans, and it isn’t a medical problem — therefore, medical interventions (like surgeries or hormone therapy) on children usually aren’t medically necessary. Being intersex is also more common than most people realize. It’s hard to know exactly how many people are intersex, but estimates suggest that about 1-2 in 100 people born in the U.S. are intersex. There are many different ways someone can be intersex. Some intersex people have genitals or internal sex organs that fall outside the male/female categories — such as a person with both ovarian and testicular tissues. Other intersex people have combinations of chromosomes that are different than XY ( usually associated with male) and XX (usually associated with female), like XXY. And some people are born with external genitals that fall into the typical male/female categories, but their internal organs or hormones don’t. If a person’s genitals look different from what doctors and nurses expect when they’re born, someone might be identified as intersex from birth. Other times, someone might not know they’re intersex until later in life, like when they go through puberty. Sometimes a person can live their whole life without ever discovering that they’re intersex. ** Full article: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity/whats-intersex

Based on my research, it appears the term they use when determining what they are biologically is transgender, followed by male/female/man/woman/etc. Biology stipulates that there are two sexes and that's it. Your research is biased. Looking at what I said, I see I worded things badly. That being said, you're not quite right either. There are actually 3 different sexes: male, female and intersex. A good article on sex and gender: Sex and gender: What is the difference? | Medical News Today

Actually, it's both: ** Sex assignment (also known as gender assignment[1][2]) is the discernment of an infant's sex, typically made at birth based on an examination of the baby's external genitalia by a healthcare provider such as a midwife, nurse, or physician.[3] In the vast majority of cases (99.95%), sex is assigned unambiguously at birth. However, in about 1 in 2000 births, the baby's genitalia may not clearly indicate male or female, necessitating additional diagnostic steps, and deferring sex assignment.[4][5] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment Actually, it is not. Quoting Wikipedia is not an argument or a rebuttal to what I just said. What you say tends to be backed up by nothing. What Wikipedia says is always backed up by sources. You can certainly contest Wikipedia's sources, but you're not doing that, all you're doing is saying that Wikipedia's assertions, which are backed up by sources, are not worth looking into.

No, this is about appeasing the delusions of people who believe they are something they are not. You only say this because you refuse to accept the fact that there are new definitions for words like gender, male and female. Once you can accept this fact, we can get into -why- you don't like these new definitions.

It's simple for people who aren't lying to themselves. After thinking about your statement, I think it may actually have some merit. Only I think, it's you and others like you who are lying to yourselves. Here's what I think the simple truth is: There are a fair amount of people who identify as transgender. I think the more we are accepting of their wish to identify with their sex of choice and find ways to make their lives more bearable in fairly private areas such as washrooms and locker rooms, the less they'll feel the need for hormones/hormone blockers and surgery.

Not true. It's because you are trying to normalize abnormal behavior. You're trying to make concessions for the trans agenda even while you say you disagree with part of it. You either support the trans agenda, or you don't. There is no middle ground on this. Your above statements remind me of the power of words. I think we can agree that words like "abnormal" are seen as bad. Uncommon frequently means the same thing, but is seen as neutral. I can certainly agree that transgender people are uncommon, but that doesn't mean they're bad. I also think it's this notion that their "behavior", as you put it, is bad, that makes many of them think that the only solution is to appear more like the sex they identify with. I strongly believe that if people would accept their behavior more, they'd feel less of a need to take hormones and undergo surgery. As to your bit about the "trans agenda", you have yet to even define what you think it is.

Because transexual behavior also belongs under the LGBT umbrella. Trannies, homos, and lesbians are all part of the LGBT community. And I suspect most, if not all, trannies are part of the transgender agenda. For starters, I'm curious to know how you define transexual behaviour. Secondly, lesbians are part of the homosexual community. I suspect you think that homosexual is exclusive to homosexual males. As to how many transexuals are part of the transgender agenda, you'd first have to define what you think the transgender agenda is.

That source is trash, so we'd better get to the correct source: The Homosexual Agenda is a self-centered set of beliefs and objectives designed to mandate approval of homosexuality and its ideology. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for homosexuals and self-described "LGBTQ people" that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see hate speech, hate crimes).[1] The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the rights of free speech and religious freedom today.[2][3][4] https://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda First of all, insulting a source doesn't invalidate its claims. Secondly, the very URL of your source reveals its bias. I think it's clear that you're conservative, and that's fine, but simply dismissing other points of view isn't going to move this dicussion along.

So... again, what is the point of placating transpeople by calling them something they are not, changing the meaning of male and female? You keep on denying the fact that terms such as male and female now have more than one definition. I've already shown you hard evidence of this. Once you accept this, we can talk about why you don't like it, but accepting the fact that these words have more than one meaning is the first step.

The term female doesn't have different meanings. It most definitely does. Here's the first definition from Cambridge's dictionary at dictionary.cambridge.org: ** female female adjective (GENDER) belonging or relating to women or girls: She was voted the best female vocalist. She was the school's first trans female athlete. ** Here's the second: ** female adjective (SEX) belonging or relating to the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs: ** So, one definition for female as defined by gender and one definition for female as defined by sex.

No, I'm simply recognizing the fact that different people have different definitions for words like male and female and I'm alright with using words like cisgender or biological to differentiate between different types of males and females when using the new definitions of males and females that have been created. As I've said before, words can meaning anything a group of people wish them to mean. Obviously, it can be hard when different groups fight for what a word means, but fortunately, we can placate both sides to some extent by using the definition they're comfortable with if we're only talking to one side. Things get more complicated when trying to talk to both sides at once. No, you are here arguing we should use these new nonsensical definitions, you are not merely a victim going along with it, trying to explain it to us. You are advocating for it. You make a good point. That being said, there are situations where I find it makes more sense to use the old definitions. As an English teacher of mine once said, it's important to know one's audience and tailor one's content for them appropriately.

I didn't invent any new words here, I'm just recognizing, and sometimes using, words that have been invented by others. All words were invented at some point. I just like to keep up with the times. Same difference, you are here embracing "cisgender" and you ignored the modifier of biological and the point being made here. That the fact is, that you must use new terms and add modifiers to existing terms proves how nonsensical your definition of male and female is now. First of all, as I've said previously, cis is both shorter than biological and gives more information about a person. So you're right that I have embraced using the term cis, at least with people who also appreciate the word. For those who don't, I can use more and longer words to say the same thing. So, I could say "A biological man that identifies as a man" instead of just saying cisgender. Whatever floats your boat. Secondly, you've still shown no evidence that there is anything "nonsensical" about the new definitions for gender terms such as male and female. I think it's clear that you and others don't like these new definitions, but there's a big difference between defining a word in a way that you don't like and a definition not making sense.

Once again, yours is a circular argument. Just because you and others are dishonestly trying to pervert the meaning of this word to something nonsensical doesn't make it so. The fact that you have to add biological to it only proves my point. What you call 'perverting' is simply changing the original meaning of the word. The definitions of words change all the time and a good amount of people have decided that their meaning of gender now includes anyone who identifies with said gender. The fat that words such as biological or cis now need to be added to gender in order to differentiate between cis and transgender people just means that there are still situations where it's important to know the difference between these 2 types of people. Incidentally, I think cis is better for 2 reasons: 1- It's shorter. 2- It doesn't just say what a person's biological gender is, but also what gender they identify with.

I have a group of people. Now what? Perhaps I should have said a -significant- group of people. The kind that can get entries like cisgender into Wikipedia, or define gender in Wikipedia as a social construct.

On that we agree at least. You forgot the second part, which is that there has to be an -agreement- among a group of people as to what words mean. Without that agreement, you've got a tower of babel situation, with people no longer understanding each other because their languages are no longer the same. This is exactly what's happening with gender and other terms denoting gender at present. The -easiest- way to resolve this is by adding other words to make what ones means clear, such as cis, trans and biological. Note the "group of people" bit. Without that, it can't work. I'm sure you're aware that what User said would be considered harassment in a lot of places. What I'm not sure of is if it's considered harassment here.

Agreed. The idea of "gender fluidity" is quite insane. It denotes a willingness to warp language and nature. They need to have their own word. "Trans" works I believe. The definitions of gender fluidity and trans are quite different. Here's what gender fluidity means according to Wikipedia: ** Gender fluidity (commonly referred to as genderfluid) is a non-fixed gender identity that shifts over time or depending on the situation. These fluctuations can occur at the level of gender identity or gender expression. A genderfluid person may fluctuate among different gender expressions over their lifetime, or express multiple aspects of various gender markers simultaneously.[1][2] Genderfluid individuals may identify as non-binary or transgender, or cisgender (meaning they identify with the gender associated with their sex assigned at birth).[3][4] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_fluidity