Scott75

They do. And in fact so does gender. I agree. The problem is they all have more than one definition. I personally don't like using the word sex to define a person's biological gender because sex clearly has other meanings. But if everyone could just agree that one's sex is one's biological gender, it would beat arguing endlessly over the definitions of gender and gender terms. I agree that words need to have meaning, and I think we can agree that they do. The problem here is that there are different groups of people who have different meanings for gender and other gender terms. I think that arguing over what definition for a given word is best generally can't get us very far, but there are certainly a variety of ways to differentiate between people who are trans and people who aren't. As to the bit about who's talking, that one does apply, because different people have different definitions for gender and gender words.

Man and woman have definitions. Indeed. Unfortunately, they have more then one, which has made the terms rather ambiguous when it comes to certain discussions, such as the one we're having in this thread. Not the kind that requires hormones/hormone blockers and surgery, no. But if a kid wants to identify as trans, I'm fine with that.

I don't think so. What I see is one side attacking the other side. Society in general was fairly open to the idea of transgenders. They had become quite accepting of the gays and this isn't much of a stretch. If anything transgenders were looked on with a little bit more sympathy because of the fact that there's a medical component. But for some reason they wanted to pick a fight. They want to compel my speech while demanding the right to call me a pejorative. Everyone has a name. Most people want to be called their names. If you insisted on calling every woman you met Sue, I think we can agree that all the non Sues out there wouldn't be happy about it. Do these non Sues want to "compel" your speech? Or do they just want to addressed by their name? As to your idea that cis is a pejorative, you still haven't provided any evidence for this. I see from this point on, you start to use "they" a lot. Who is this "they" you keep on referring to? It reminds me of a joke from Gary Larson:

One could say heterosexual male. And that would be good enough. First of all, we weren't even talking about the gender a given person is sexually attracted to. The subject of this thread was whether posters here were "a man or a woman" and that tends to lead to a conversation on the definition of gender and the various gender words. A trans male could identify as a heterosexual male. If you don't care if the male identifying himself is trans or not, then that would be fine to establish both their gender and the gender they are sexually attracted to, but my guess is that you'd object. You mentioned previously that unless you're black and are using the term in an appropriate way, that term shouldn't be used, and I agree. The problem for your argument when it comes to the term cis is that you haven't provided any evidence that it is mainly used pejoratively.

It does not depend on who's saying it. The only time that a pejorative is not actually a pejorative is when the group that it was used against tries to reclaim it. You haven't presented any evidence that cis is a pejorative. As I tried to explain previously, a -lot- of terms can be used pejoratively, even if they aren't regularly seen this way.

Some people use "white person" in a pejorative way. Others don't. The bottom line is that it's an accurate way to describe a person's gender identity as well as their biological gender at the same time. It's not accurate. I strongly disagree, but let's get into why you apparently think it's innacurate, continuing... All terms were once made up by someone who felt they were appropriate. Whether they stick depends on whether a significant amount of people agree that the new term is a good one and begin to use it themselves. The subject of this thread isn't a person's sexual attraction. It's about the definition of words such as gender, man, woman, etc. You made a grammatical error in what you said above that makes me unsure as to what you meant. To clarify, are you trying to say "is an innacurate" or "is an accurate"? Makes sense. But people who are cisgender -do- use the term. I'm an example. I certainly don't use it -often-, in fact I think I used it rarely if ever before I waded into this thread (though I had certainly heard of it), but I've used it to describe myself and others who are biological males who identify as males. I'd think you could take away the "probably" in that case. But as I've mentioned before, people can use all sorts of terms that are not regularly pejorative in a pejorative way. I mentioned that "white people" can be used pejoratively, for example, but that doesn't mean that calling people white is pejorative by default. Perhaps I should add that I myself am white. Right. I assume you're referring to terms like cisgender. Cisgender actually does have a history: ** The word cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) describes a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth, i.e., someone who is not transgender.[1][2][3] The prefix cis- is Latin and means on this side of. The term cisgender was coined in 1994 as an antonym to transgender, and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender.[4][5] The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique. ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender I find that it's a simple and accurate way to differentiate between biological genders and trans genders, which is why I brought it up in this thread.

I agree with you there. But it's not so malleable. But you need to make up your mind, because you're claiming it is. Your flip-flopping back and forth on this. No, I'm not, but I can see how you could get that impression. The point I was making was rather subtle- essentially, that the term is currently -somewhat- malleable, but not -that- malleable. Put another way, it's not that gender means "something different to anyone", as you put it, but that there are currently 2 definitions put out by 2 different groups, both vying to win the definition war. I said as much in the text that followed the 2 lines of mine that you quoted: ** Recently, there's been a type of battle between what we can call the old definition, that gender is tied to biology, and the new one that it is a social construct, as Wikipedia puts it. For now, both of these definitions exist and thus, it can be hard to know what a person means when they say they are male or female, because it depends on how they're defining their gender. That's why using terms like cis or biological are important if one wants to establish one's biological gender. ** As I pointed out about, there are -2- fairly common definitions put out by 2 different groups currently vying for supremacy. I'm not sure what you meant by "then it shouldn't be considered as part of the discussion because terms that can't be just fine have no place in a discussion about people's rights." If you could elaborate, would be appreciated. Again, my point is subtle- it's not that -anyone- is definining what terms like gender mean. As I've said, there are only 2 common definitions, and they both have significant backing, an old one and a new one. I do believe that one of them will ultimately prevail, and I think you can guess which one I think it'll be, but until one prevails, we're essentially stuck with terms like gender, male, female, etc. that have become rather ambiguous and the only way to remove their ambiguity at this point is to precede them with other words, such as biological, cis or trans. Yes, just as the number of people who called gays f@ggots increased for a long time. But that wasn't a good thing. I agree with you regarding it being bad that there was once an increase in calling gay people the name you mentioned, but I also believe it's a good thing that people are increasingly defining gender as a social construct, while still leaving other words such as sex or cisgender/transgender to define people's biological gender.

Always nice to start off on what we can agree on This is true 🙂 It's not a question of whether or not it offends them. The point is it's the truth. It's not a term that is intended to be offensive or that is offensive and common use such as the n word. It is a statement of fact and that differentiates it. A person may or may not be offended by the truth. There are certainly no end of examples of people being offended by what is true, or at least becoming very angry about it. But that doesn't stop it from being true. If somebody makes a true statement and they're not doing it in a malicious or vindictive fashion then whether it's offensive or not to the other person they should not be penalized for it. If someone asks me if they're fat and I look at them and I say "Yes, you are objectively overweight by a significant amount. I would guess that you would need to lose approximately 50 lb to be at your ideal body weight" , Then even if they are offended by that or hurt by that or it makes them sad all I've done is state a simple truth without malice. It doesn't matter how much they've tried to lose weight, it doesn't matter how hard it is for them to lose weight or how much it upsets them to be overweight. What you said above made me smile. I recall a certain person saying that cisgender offended them. I can imagine reciting everything you just said to justify the term :-p. Anyway, the fundamental point remains the same- the definitions of terms like gender, male, female, etc. are being fought over in a way. Some people, such as myself, can juggle between the 2- that is, if I know that my audience is comprised of people who define gender as cisgender by default, I can simply say add trans when defining people who are not cisgender. If I know my audience has at least some people who define gender as a social construct, on the other hand, things become more complicated, and I will have to decide how to define my terms based on the various factors involved.

So, why do we need to add that in order to identify someone like you want to do? This goes back to my belief that there should be a way to differentiate between cisgender and transgender people. Since many people now include transgender people as the gender they identify with, another word other than a person's gender is needed to differentiate between them. cis and trans can work, such as cisgender and transgender. Biological can work to identify people who biologically the same gender as the one they identify with.

Sex is not assigned. Sex is identified based on someones sexual organs and can be further confirmed by their genetics. 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

Yes, they are literally pretending to be something they are not. Again, for people who define male and female as people who identify as such, trans males are males and trans females are females. For someone who doesn't like the idea of having definitions "crammed down your throat" as you put it, you certainly seem to be wanting to do a fair amount of cramming yourself. You need to learn to accept that some people want to define these words differently then you do and stop trying to force them to define these words the way you define them.

So, you just defined a word... using the word. Not with the word alone, but certainly with the word as part of its definition, yes. It reminds me of GNU: ** GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix!",[6][12] chosen because GNU's design is Unix-like, but differs from Unix by being free software and containing no Unix code.[6][13][14] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU

Doesn't make it right, accurate, or make any sense. I can certainly agree that just because a sizeable group of people define something a certain way doesn't mean it is right, accurate or make any sense. I think a good example is how Nazis defined jewish people. That being said, in this particular case, I think that defining males and females as people who identify as such is fine. This doesn't mean that we can't -also- define males and females as biological males and females, but I think we can agree that having 2 definitions for the same common words can get confusing. So I think it'd be better if we ultimately settled on just one, and I think you can figure out which one I prefer. But it's ultimately up to nations to decide on how words are defined, particularly when it comes to official matters such as the law and workplace terminology.

Yes, they can, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's important to note the "we" part. No, you are not interested in "we" at all here. You want to cram this down "we" throats when "we" disagree. No, that's not true. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't people who want to cram x or y definition down people's throats, whether it's the old definitions or the new ones. I, on the other hand, am trying to -persuade- people that the new definitions are good. As I've pointed out, I can use the old definitions if I know I'm talking to people who prefer them, but the same goes for the new definitions.

No, it is about your bad arguments. Pfft -.- But better than it being about me anyway. Because I believe in truth and reality, I will not succumb to someone else's delusion and sacrifice my own integrity by supporting this madness. In truth, this is about definitions, old ones vs. new ones. You simply don't like the new definitions that a growing number of people are using for terms like gender, male and female. It reminds me of a line from one of Frank Herbert's books: "Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future."

No, just males. As you know, the term male has more than one definition. I know the definition you're using, but it's not a definition used by everyone. I can use your definition when talking to people who use that one, but if I'm talking to those who don't, I may use cisgender male or biological male if it's important to differentiate them from trans males. 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. 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. Again, it all comes down to trying to be specific. Since the term female now has different meanings, if I want to be specific as to what -kind- of female I'm referring to, I may say trans female or biological/cisgender female. Conversely, if I'm talking to a crowd that I know defines women as biological women, I can say transwoman to make it clear that I'm not talking about a biological woman. I'm a very firm believer that regardless of how we define what a female or a woman is, there -must- be a way to differentiate between biological/cisgender women. If a man wants to have kids that are biologically related to him, he would need to be with a biological woman and get her pregnant. A transwoman simply can't get pregnant. So if someone is trying to take away the ability the differentiate between trans and biological people, I'd be firmly against it.

I guess so. On the other hand, we do things like this: https://nationalpost.com/news/evidence-against-justin-trudeau-claim-he-didnt-force-vaccination I left Canada before they banned flights for people who were unvaccinated for covid and haven't gone back.

This is nonsense. What is nonsense? I actually agree with you to some extent- I think that at least a fair amount of people who get transition hormones and surgery would have been better off if they'd grown up in an environment that was accepting of their nature in the body they were born with. Unfortunately, that's frequently not the case. I think it may also be why many continue to think that they made the right decision to transition. I think the following testimony from a trans gender man that came out in the "What is a woman?" documentary is very revealing. The following clip is from 55 minutes and 29 seconds in: ** I never fit. I was an alpha female, I was a sales executive, kind of just didn't fit in any box. When psychologists or somebody that I was in love with, or whatever, said that I was in the wrong body, I started to think, well, maybe I am." ** Source: https://rumble.com/v2rpv4w-what-is-a-woman-matt-walsh-full-documentary.html

Well, we did have those tense Quebec referendums, but fortunately the side that wanted to stay in Canada prevailed 🙂

Incredible... No you do not need to add "cis". Again, it depends on how a given person defines the words man and woman. I actually currently believe that things like hormones and surgery shouldn't be done until the person wanting them done is an adult. Teens are confused about a lot of things, and I've already heard of examples where they've regretted their decision to get these things. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't learn about terms like cisgender, transgender, etc., just that I don't think they're ready to make any permanent decisions such as surgery.

From your "definition"... "The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique." And always will be. Always is a very long time. I doubt either you or I will be around at that point, at least as the people we identify ourselves to be today. But we can certainly agree that words preceded by cis are controversial today. So does mine. Since we're both cisgender males (or biological males if you prefer), we're both happy about that too. The problem comes if you're a transgender male. Probably not so much because of the birth certificate but because of how one is perceived by others.

The most important truth of life is that it takes a woman and a man to procreate. That you don't understand that is concerning. I understand what you're saying, because I understand how you're defining a man and a woman. One could also say that it takes a cisgender woman and a cisgender man to procreate. Nothing would change other than adding the cis part, which clarifies what type of man and woman are being referred to. I saw the beginning of the clip, I think that was enough. Back when I still had a driver's license, I carried it with me whenever I was driving so that if I was stopped by a police officer, I could show it to them if necessary. While I've heard some claims to the contrary, I was raised to believe that if a cop stops you, that's the thing to do, so I did it on the rare occassions that I was pulled over. This man apparently didn't think it was necessary, at least at first, which told me what I think I needed to know about that video. All I can say here is that your statement is so vague that it's impossible to truly respond to it. It all depends on what you mean by "bull****".

Considering it's a perjorative i think then that what you're saying is that straight men and women should organize to stick up for their rigths and fight back against those who would repress them. I -think- you're saying that cis is a pejorative. As I've said previously, it depends on who's saying it. I think that for the most part, cis is not used pejoratively. Most importantly, calling someone a cisgender or a transgender male/female makes both their biological gender and the gender they identify with clear. In a time where the meaning of gender has become a battlefield, I think it's nice to have a term that doesn't need to take sides on this issue. And if you like the term cis, you can replace it with biological- it's just longer. I tend to avoid long words when shorter ones will do. On the contrary, I think it's quite possible. But for peaceful coexistence to occur, I think both sides are going to have to examine why both sides feel threatened. I think the best way to do that is through conversations like the one we're having now.

The vast majority of words have a set meeting that is recognized within their era. Yes, within their era or time. The time's are always changing though. I haven't done a study on words and how often their meanings are changed/modified/expanded. But I think it's eminently clear that terms denoting a person's gender have been changing quite a bit for a good number of people recently. It's also clear that not everyone is accepting of these changes. But elder people not liking the way words are being modified is highly a new concept. I remember my grandfather on my father's side not liking some of the new mexican slang that I was using. But ultimately, older generations pass away and it's the new generations that take the wheel. Yes, given enough time, the meanings of many words change. I agree with you there. But it's not so malleable. Recently, there's been a type of battle between what we can call the old definition, that gender is tied to biology, and the new one that it is a social construct, as Wikipedia puts it. For now, both of these definitions exist and thus, it can be hard to know what a person means when they say they are male or female, because it depends on how they're defining their gender. That's why using terms like cis or biological are important if one wants to establish one's biological gender. So's fagot. Fair enough. But while I think we can agree that the amount of people calling a bundle of twigs fagot is dwindling, the number of people who are using the term cisgender is increasing.

First of all, I think we should get into what is meant by agenda here. If your meaning is "a motive or set of goals", sure. I think people do things to make their lives better, so that could certainly fit. Motives And set of goals works just fine for the purposes of this conversation. But people have a lot more motivations than just what makes their lives better unfortunately. You'd need to get into specific examples in order to properly discuss this theme.