Scott75

I doubt dictionaries were ever apolitical. Politics, after all, is: ** the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics Dictionaries are created by groups of people who have to make decisions on what words mean. I suspect there has been disagreements as to how words should be defined soon after words were invented. I don't always think that various dictionaries choose the best definitions for words, but they are incredibly useful when trying to figure out what words mean, as well as letting people know when words have more than a single definition.

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'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.

Man and woman. First of all, man and woman are words, not laws of nature. I suspect you're trying to say that I'm in favour of defining those words in a way that includes trans people. I'd certainly agree to that.

Nobody really cares, phoenix75, as you're a troll. First of all, I'd like to think that calling posters a troll is a personal attack and thus now allowed. However, I'm not sure, so I've asked the moderation team to clarify. Secondly, if no one cared what I had to say, I think the logical thing to do would be to just put me on ignore. Instead, I got 4 responses to the post you're responding to. So it's not that no one cares, it's that a lot of people in this thread don't like my point of view. Which is fine in and of itself, but I've always felt that personal attacks is the way to derail productive discussions. If I don't care to argue with someone anymore, I just stop conversing on my end. No need to attack the messenger.

I saw the pinned "automated moderation" post, so clearly there is some limits as to what one should and shouldn't post. I also understand that the Admin team may not want to be too specific as to what can and can't be said to avoid people figuring out ways to work around it. But it'd be nice if we could at least have some general guidelines. Things like, are personal attacks generally considered ok? Perhaps more importantly, what would constitute harassment? I would definitely prefer it if they weren't, but I've been in a forum where they -were- generally considered ok, and I don't want to report posts of this nature if the Administration thinks they're fine.

Go to your local zoo, find the Llama sanctuary, then come back and tell us which one is Transgender. Pro Tip, it's not the one that spits. Perhaps if animals had a complicated language as humans do, some would identify as transgender. But I suspect you don't know that I have a fair amount of misgivings concerning transgender people getting surgery. I've already said that at the present time, I think that minors shouldn't be allowed to get transgender surgery, as minors are frequently confused as to what they want in life, and transgender surgery is permanent. Now, animals have definitely been seen engaging in homosexual behaviour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior Now, you could say that homosexuality has nothing to do with being transgender, but I'm not so sure. I remember comedian Bill Maher once saying that perhaps a minor thinking they're transgender is just a gay kid that wants to fit in better and I suspect that in some cases, this is true. In Iran, it's illegal to be homosexual, but it's "ok" (if still looked down upon) if you medical transition to the opposite gender. Things are clearly not so messed up here, but there is certainly a lot of pressure for homosexuals to conform to gender norms, suggesting that some might want to at least look like the opposite sex so that they can benefit from the opposite sex norms.

In a word...YES. The denial of the basic and fundamental laws of nature is in opposition to nature. What "basic and fundamental laws of nature" do you think I'm opposing? You ask a lot of questions for a guy who never really seems to answer any I definitely ask a lot of questions. I think that's a good thing in a discussion. Admitting when you're not sure of something is generally an asset, as it prevents jumping to false conclusions. As to never really seeming to answer questions, I think it's more that you don't like the answers I give.

LOL, no. That is not accurate at all. A Democrat is defined as someone belonging to the Democratic party or a supporter of them. You can then further define what the Democratic party is. Same with Republican. 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. Absolute balderdash and this just shows that you jump to false conclusions easily.

I agree it definitely takes getting used to. I don't currently know anyone that goes by they/them, at least not to my knowledge, which makes things simpler. But I'm willing to sound a tad awkward if it makes them feel better. Definitely better then someone getting surgery just so that they look more like the pronoun they'd like people to use for them. The only caveat is that I -really- don't want to have to deal with people who change their pronouns on a regular basis. It's hard enough for me to remember to try to always give them a pronoun that doesn't fit what they look like biologically :-p. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I did briefly get to know a trans man who had gotten surgery and hormones to look more like a biological man. At first, he had me thinking he was a biological man until he told the men's group that he was a trans man. Some there already knew, so it wasn't like he took everyone by surprise. But once he mentioned he was trans, I did notice some body features that made it indeed seem that he had previously been a woman (and was ofcourse still biologically a woman). He only came a few times to the men's group before deciding it wasn't for him, but I found myself thinking about some of the things he said. And I fully admit that sometimes I'd think of he as she because of some of the features that that made him seem somewhat feminine, but I believe that while I was around him, I always used the pronoun he preferred.

This is not the kind of different meaning you were arguing the term has. All this is saying is that the term female can relate to talking about sex or gender, but they are still the same thing, as it says female is belonging to being a woman or a girl. Which... you must be female to be a woman or girl or to have the sex of female you are a woman or a girl. Did you not notice the example given of the trans female athlete? Feel free to explain what it is you think is relevant. The point is that even the Cambridge dictionary is now using the word trans in conjunction with terms like female. They even make a distinction between female as a gender and female as a sex. For those that'd like to see me quoting the cambridge dictionary, as well as a link to their page, it's all in my post #274. You may not like the fact that female as a gender now includes trans females, but it's something that has now made it to a well known dictionary, so it's pretty hard to deny. What you're left with is saying that it is "nonsensical", "gibberish", etc., but I personally disagree with all of these assertions you've made and think that Cambridge made the right decision.

They don't. They have one definition Back to denial again -.- Ah well, hopefully you'll come around one day. Nope. I have truth, logic, common sense, and reason on my side. What you have is an inability to realize that you keep flip flopping on whether or not terms like gender have more than a single definition. I'm sure you'll figure it out at some point, but until you do, it's pretty hard to debate with you whether there -should- be more than one defition of these terms.

You can't even keep the terms of this discussion straight. The issue isn't their existence; it's that I reject them and their nonsensical definitions. I still think that you're doing both, but it's nice that you're currently acknowledging the fact that there is more than one definition for terms like gender, male, female, etc. As to your assertion that some of these definitions are nonsensical, you can explain your reasoning if you like. I'm certainly voicing my belief that I believe that the new definitions for gender, male, female, etc. are good ones. I clearly don't agree with you that my arguments are "awful...nonsensical gibberish". Again, if you want to explain your reasoning as to why you believe these things, by all means.

There is no problem here, except the one you are creating. No, the problem has been around for quite some time. The fact that you just quoted me saying "The problem arises" rather than the whole sentence it came from, let alone the whole paragraph, strongly suggests that deep down, you know full well what the problem is, you just don't want to admit it exists. That's your choice to make, but it doesn't remove the problem.

All I can do is point out what recognized sources of information have said about sex assignment. You're free to disagree all you like: ** 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] In most countries the healthcare provider's determination, along with other details of the birth, is by law recorded on an official document and submitted to the government for later issuance of a birth certificate and for other legal purposes.[6] The prevalence of intersex conditions, where a baby's sex characteristics do not conform strictly to typical definitions of male or female, ranges between 0.018% and 1.7%.[7][8][9] While some intersex conditions result in genital ambiguity (approximately 0.02% to 0.05% of births[4]), others present genitalia that are distinctly male or female, which may delay the recognition of an intersex condition until later in life.[10][11] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment Then move along if you are unable to articulate any argument to back up your assertions here. I just did, complete with long quote and reference link. It's you that rarely provides evidence for your claims.

Anyone can say that. The hard part is showing that prominent sources agree with your logic, observation and reason. That's where you fail on this subject. You can't argue against what I say, all you can do is play this dishonest game of saying Wikipedia says something different. I simply said that anyone can say that what they say is "backed up by logic, observation and reason". What's a lot harder to do is provide evidence for assertions of this nature.

You make a condescending and insulting comment from what I can only assume is the one book series in the universe you've ever read because you keep coming back to it And when someone comments back with a common phrase that's similar in reply you think there's been an escalation I'm -guessing- that the "condescending and insulting comment" you're referring to is Frank Herbert's line on conservatives. For those who missed it, it was this: "Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future." You responded with one on liberals that was a lot thornier, which is why I put in the "that escalated quickly" meme, but that's as far as that went. As I pointed out, I don't identify as a liberal and don't think I ever have. Currently, I'm going with realist. As to your bit about my reading, I've read quite a lot more than the Dune series of books. It's just that Frank Herbert has a fair amount of good lines that I like to quote. I've quoted other authors as well, just not in this thread.

There is no problem. There is, you just refuse to acknowledge it. I've already mentioned what the problem is above. First of all, I strongly suspect that your "99%" number is made up, but if it's not, by all means point to a reputable source for it. Secondly, cisgender is not the only term that can be used to describe a biological male/female that identifies as a male/female. It's just shorter. For those who have a strong dislike for the term cisgender, going for the much longer versions, such as "a biological male who identifies as a male" can work too.

I have never said that all trans people see things the same way. True. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't implying it. Alright, thanks for clarifying. I suspect you've forgotten that I was asking -you- if you believed that all trans people saw things the same way. I've certainly never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself. What I was -actually- trying to do was understand your positions. I think I have a better take on them now.

From you I've actually voiced my disagreements with some positions that other trans people and their supporters have had. Perhaps most notably, I'm currently against minors getting hormones/hormone blockers and surgery. Secondly, I believe that many trans people and their supporters squandered a great opportunity for dialogue when JK Rowling took issue with the title of an article. Fortunately, JK Rowling herself took it upon herself to discuss her views in more detail. An article on JK Rowling's now famous tweet that started this: A Complete Breakdown of the J.K. Rowling Transgender-Comments Controversy | Glamour

The trans agenda isn't some sort of thing. It's not an organization. You can't email it. It's not a building or the like. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you The leave in the more radical trans movement and have an agenda of your own In your last sentence above, did you mean to say 'I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you believe in the more radical trans movement and have an agenda of your own'?

The ideology behind your responses is indicative of that. You have no interest in considering other people's position you only wish to consider your own. Can you provide an example where you think this is the case? Again, can you provide an example where you believe I've done this? Again, can you name an example where you believe I have done this?

That's quite the draconian vision you have of this alleged trans agenda -.- Thanks for sharing though. Now I at least know what you think this alleged trans agenda is. It may be a Draconian agenda, but it is certainly not a Draconian vision of one. It is demonstrably true and empirically true. Trans people in this day and age are demanding that other people surrender their rights and that their rights become subservient to the proposed trans rights Do you have any evidence that this alleged agenda actually exists?

Where did you get that idea? I imagine young people have been making up new definitions for words as well as making brand new ones since words were invented. Similarly, I imagine that older people have frequently resisted these changes and new words since young people started doing this. I'm not saying that new definitions and brand new words are exclusively created by young people, but I think they're the main source. Similarly, I think that older people are generally the main source of resistance to new definitions to words as well as entirely new words.

So when you're argument the person that has the strongest position gets to make the definition. That is morally bankrupt. I think you meant to say "So then your argument is that the person that has the strongest position gets to make the definition" rather than what your first sentence above actually said. Assuming this is the case, no, that's not my argument. Anyone can define a word however they like, but if they don't have "agreement and a tradition on which to build", as Frank Herbert puts it in another Dune line, it generally won't do very well in conversations. If a group of people can get a word into a dictionary or other well known reference, such as Wikipedia, however, that I would consider to be a hallmark of success into what we could perhaps call a word definition going mainstream. Note that morality has nothing to do with it. You actually brought up a good example, the term f@ggot. While one of its definitions is simply a bundle of sticks, the other definition is, as The Century Dictionary puts it, "Slang, disparaging a male homosexual; -- always used disparagingly and considered offensive." Now I think we can agree that people should avoid using such a word on someone who is gay, but that doesn't change the fact that it made it into a dictionary.

Almost right. They have specific meanings, plural. Here's Wikipedia's introduction to the term female: ** In species that have males and females, sex-determination may be based on either sex chromosomes, or environmental conditions. Most female mammals, including female humans, have two X chromosomes. Characteristics of organisms with a female sex vary between different species, having different female reproductive systems, with some species showing characteristics secondary to the reproductive system, as with mammary glands in mammals. 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