Scott75

If there's no recognized definition then the word is by definition meaningless. In which case it shouldn't be considered when talking about people's rights or anything legal. On the contrary, there are -multiple- recognized definitions. However, I think we can agree that when it comes to legal terms, there should be only one. I think it's clear that judges are making laws that are codifying what gender means legally and I think that's a good thing.

if you are trying to say that the word cis or cisgender has NOT become a Pejorative that I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you dishonest right here. It is used in a demeaning and dismissive way. You might as well argue that n*gger just comes from the word 'negro' so it's perfectly fine. Or that "f@ggot" just means a short stick. The term is used pejoratively and often in connection with racist comments. The term "cis white male" for example is used to basically call all hetero white males subhumans who should be repressed at all costs as they are the source of all evils in the universe. 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. Other terms can be used, ofcourse, such as "biological male", but that only describes their biological gender. One could ofcourse say "non trans male" if one really doesn't like the term "cis".

Funny enough I think that joke highlights an underlying issue with your example. Calling a gay person a f@ggot, you are specifically referring to them in a derogatory term. It's not an accurate term, it's a term that is meant specifically to be derogatory. It's like calling someone a b*tch, you're not ACTUALLY saying they're a female dog. You're deliberately being derogatory and COMPARING them to one in YOUR estimation. The same is true for n*gger. As the comet points out he's not actually a n*gger, as he understands the word. It's not an accurate or descriptive term, it's a pejorative that is specifically designed to demean or denigrate someone. We agree up to this point. It actually all depends on how we define various terms. For a trans woman to be called a man can certainly offend -them-. Think about all of the effort some of them have put into looking like a woman. Similarly, why do you think that it offends cisgender men a girly man, or a cisgender woman a manly woman? I think there is something profoundly wrong with our societies that we are offended of being compared to the opposite gender, even though most of us are -attracted- to the opposite gender. I think that the trans community is a strong reaction against gender stereotypes and I think that allowing anyone to identify as the gender they choose should be allowed, just as long as we have terms that can still identify people by their biological gender when this becomes important. I'm reminded of a line from Obi-Wan Kenobi, explaining to Luke Skywalker how his telling him that Darth Vader had killed his father was true, from a certain point of view: ** “Your father... was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be the Jedi Anakin Skywalker and "became" the Sith Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.” ** What is true all depends on your point of view, which certainly includes on how words are defined in the various groups we interact with. Here's a suggestion: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". It's akin to how comedians are given far more leeway to say things then people in a work setting. Sure, but I don't think that the court should have any right to have a say in it at all in the first place. Unless someone is able to demonstrate that the offending person is being offending maliciously and has a position of authority over the person involved I don't think there should be any grounds for legal action Well, clearly some judges disagree and I think I tend to agree with said judges. As I've said previously, it all depends on who you're interacting with. Black people who are good friends can sometimes call each other the N word and be fine with it. By contrast, a white person calling a black person said word is almost always frowned upon. They're social conventions that we've learned to live with. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that many trans people want to be identified with the gender they identify with. I don't see why we can't accomodate them. As I said, if one needs to know a person's biological identity, there are words to find that out, such as whether someone is cisgender or transgender.

I certainly agree that if you want to know someone's biological gender, asking for their gender may not get you that information. I don't care to know someone's gender because I'm not confused or deliberately trying to redefine society. It's all rather clear over here. I was simply agreeing with you that using the word gender has become too ambiguous and that it's better to define a person's biological gender by asking for a person's sex, or, even clearer, their "sex assigned at birth". It means we don't make accomadations for gendermandering. We go by biological sex and that's it. That doesn't really explain much. As I've said elsewhere, I think that for many trans people who are considering things like hormone therapy and surgery, the -reason- they think this may be their best option is because they don't feel accepted by society the way they currently appear. Which to me strongly suggests that society needs to be more accepting of people who stretch gender norms.

No, it's indicative of the lgbt agenda. You don't see it because you are steeped in the lgbt agenda, but we see it, and that's why we are calling it out. What exactly do you believe constitutes the "lgbt agenda"? Secondly, the only relatively well known person who I've seen bring up the effects of chemicals in relation to people's gender identity is Alex Jones, who is Wikipedia describes as being on the far right. No, my idea of acceptance entails accepting people for who they are, not for who some conservatives would like them to be. Ironically, I think this could lead to -less- hormone therapies and surgeries, because if people are more comfortable with who they already are, they would feel less of a need to try to change their appearance. Anyone can speak against vague abstractions such as "the left", but it won't us anywhere productive. To get productive results, we need to talk about specifics. Again, this depends on the place. Several laws have already been instituted allowing trans women to use the washroom of the gender they identify with. Again, I strongly disagree, not least of which is because some trans people have children of their own. What's needed is more dialogue to try to find a way that everyone's concerns are heard and ultimately, find an approach that integrates trans people, whether or not they have taking hormones or surgery. I suspect that most people would be better off without hormone therapies and surgeries, but for that, they have to be comfortable in the bodies they already have. And that, I strongly suspect, will only come once societies are more comfortable with the fact that a lot of people don't want to comform to certain gender stereotypes.

You said wikipedia is uneditable - at least some of it is uneditable. Point out the pages that are uneditable. I never said that any Wikipedia page was uneditable. I said: ** I know for a fact that not all Wikipedia pages can be edited by anyone. Some require you to have already edited a large amount of Wikipedia pages, and I also know that you can be banned from editing Wikipedia pages. I've noticed that Wikipedia's gender article is semi protected, which means: ** Semi-protected pages like this page cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia). Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi ** Source: https://repolitics.com/forums/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=54465&content_commentid=1762375

More fluid? You're thinking people should just accept the the warping of perhaps the most important truth of life. Could you define what you mean by "the most important truth of life"? I have already voiced concerns about biological men competing in women's sports. Some olympic sports now allow it to some extent, but there are limits: https://www.newsweek.com/rules-transgender-olympic-athletes-explained-1920847 I've never been a big fan of competitive sports to begin with, so this is mostly below my radar. You seem to think that this is something that adults are 'bringing' to kids. I think it's something that kids are discovering about themselves and I suspect that a great deal more adults are suppressing it rather than encouraging it. Ironically, I think it's the conservative approach to a person's gender identity/fluidity that is persuading some trans people to get surgery. I suspect that being more accepting of gender identity and fluidity could lead to -less- surgeries, which I think would probably be for the best. I'd need to see the specific laws in question, but I think I get the point to some extent. It's like it's not lawful to call a black person the N word. Trans people are clearly different than cisgender people (biological people if you prefer). I think that allowing them to be included in the gender they identify with makes the most sense. As mentioned previously, if it becomes important to know the sex a person was assigned at birth, you can simply add cis or trans before terms like male and female. I think the childishness is in this insistence that old definitions of male and female can't change. They already have for a substantial amount of people, and I think the trend is clearly that this only become more prevalent in the future. Not only has this battle come to pass, but I think it's clear who will win it. Look to the youth. They're the ones who will inherit the earth.

I got a 404 (page could not be found). I think I found it elsewhere though: https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-nine-months-that-made-you/

You can have 2 XX chromosomes and your brain still isn't synchronized with your genitalia because they develop at different phases in the development process. Can you provide a linked article or something to that effect that posits this?

No one is arguing that a woman isn't a thing, as you put it. Rather, what's been established is that different groups of people have different definitions of what a woman is. What we may call the more conservative group defines women as people who were assigned as female at birth. What we can call the more progressive group defines women as adults who identify as women. I think we can can agree that having more than one definition for such a common word can be confusing, but that's just the way things are for now. I suspect that in the future, we'll settle down on a single definition, but as to when that'll be, I don't know.

not really. There really is still a definition of male and female that is considered to be accurate and definitive. There's not only one in the dictionary but there is also more importantly a medical one and as we're talking about biology that is certainly going to be definitive. You're right, but as you say, this is when we're talking about biology. There are many definitions of gender. Some conform to what we might call the traditional definition. Here's an example: ** noun Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions; sex. ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/gender , The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition Others don't: ** noun The mental analogue of sex: one's maleness (masculinity) or femaleness (femininity). (Also called gender identity.) ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/gender , Wiktonary, Creative Commons 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. Secondly, people have done more than just try to alter the meanings of words, they've done it time and again since words were first created. Finally, I'd say that it's gone beyond simply being colloqualisms, considering the fact that Wikipedia has no biological component for gender and the Oxford dictionary now includes the term cisgender: https://web.archive.org/web/20150814051905/http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/june-2015-update/new-words-notes-june-2015/ Based on the fact that more and more youth are identifying as transgender or gender fluid, I think this is a trend that will only increase over time.

Did you have a point? I did, yes. Unfortunately, it requires that you actually read what I posted from Wikipedia. IF that's the case then Wikipedia has a point, not you. My point was that Wikipedia didn't mention that gender had a biological component.

You're making several assumptions in the above statement. The first is that everyone agrees on the definitions of men and women. It's patently obvious that this isn't the case. Wait a minute, you wanted to change the meaning of male and female, now you want to change the meaning of man and woman too. You're mistaken on all counts. I don't want to change any definitions. Rather, I decided to go with the definitions that are already being used by a fair amount of people in North America. If one needs to know a person's sex assigned at birth, one can simply add cis or trans to male/female/man/woman etc. The definition that a good number of people are now using in North America and elsewhere is that a man/male is someone who identifies as such. Same deal with woman/female.

Wrong. What do you think I'm wrong about? I wasn't familiar with the term cultural marxism, so I decided to look it up. Here's what I got from Wikipedia: ** "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents Western Marxism (especially the Frankfurt School) as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. The conspiracy theory posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the supposed Christian values[note 1] of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values.[1][2][3][4][5] A contemporary revival of the Nazi propaganda term "Cultural Bolshevism", the contemporary version of the conspiracy theory originated in the United States during the 1990s.[6][1][7][note 2] Originally found only on the far-right political fringe, the term began to enter mainstream discourse in the 2010s and is now found globally.[7] The conspiracy theory of a Marxist culture war is promoted by right-wing politicians, fundamentalist religious leaders, political commentators in mainstream print and television media, and white supremacist terrorists,[8] and has been described as "a foundational element of the alt-right worldview".[9] Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact.[7][5][10] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory So I guess this is your type of thing?

And you won't see trannies saying that they are biologically the gender they identify with because they don't like that word. In fact they probably hate it. lol 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. As noted elsewhere, if it's important for some reason to know a person's sex assigned at birth, a transgender person (or someone who knows their biological gender) can simply say they are transgender.

Gender denotes biological sex of people. Not how some freaked out group feel about the gender they are.! Pick another word. This is no longer just about transgender people, if indeed it ever was. It's also about the people who care about them. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the term to denote someone who identifies as the sex they were assigned at birth is cisgender. For someone who identifies as the sex they weren't assigned at birth, it's transgender. It's even made it into some dictionaries according to Wikipedia. Here's the introduction they've made for the term: ** 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. Related concepts are cisnormativity (the presumption that cisgender identity is preferred or normal) and cissexism (bias or prejudice favoring cisgender people). ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

The only agenda Americans focus on is the one causing a fight over women's lockers, and access to other people's children. It's very simple. Trannies need to adapt to normal society, not the other way around. If it were so simple, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. As I've already pointed out, not all transgender people have the same agenda, so that part of your argument falls flat. This is ultimately an issue that all Americans, as well as people from other countries will have to deal with. In the U.S., it looks like transgender rights are gaining a significant amount of ground: https://theconversation.com/better-locker-rooms-its-not-just-a-transgender-thing-74023 https://www.athleticbusiness.com/operations/legal/article/15683897/transgender-students-lawsuit-over-locker-room-access-costs-district-millions https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/federal-appeals-courts-agree-trans-people-belong-in-schools https://www.kcur.org/education/2024-06-04/missouri-appeals-court-sides-with-blue-springs-transgender-student-in-4-million-discrimination-case https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/wisconsin-school-district-cant-restrict-bathrooms-trans-student-judge-rcna93471 I for one think that efforts to increase things like gender neutral washrooms is a good one.

Yes. That is the case. lol You are being dishonest because you are using Bill Clinton reasoning to help mainstream transsexualism. I suspect the real reason you think I'm being dishonest is because I'm disagreeing with you on one or more points.

Already responded. Go research the homosexual agenda. Already did, which I suspect you know, but we're responding to previous versions of our conversation so it can't be helped. That being said, I think getting into it again is useful here for a specific reason, so here goes: ** "Gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda" is a pejorative[1][2] term used by sectors of the Christian religious right as a disparaging way to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual sexual orientations and relationships. The term originated among social conservatives in the United States and has been adopted in nations with active anti-LGBT movements such as Hungary and Uganda. The term refers to efforts to change government policies and laws on LGBT rights–related issues. Additionally, it has been used by social conservatives and others to describe alleged goals of LGBT rights activists, such as recruiting heterosexuals into what conservatives term a "homosexual lifestyle". ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_agenda How does the the homosexual/gay agenda have anything to do with transexual behavior?

The U.S. briefly occupied a bit of Canada back in 1812. Granted it wasn't exactly much of an occupation :-p. For those who haven't heard of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 Here's the occupied part: ** Late in 1813, the Americans abandoned the Canadian territory that they occupied around Fort George. They set fire to the village of Newark (now Niagara-on-the-Lake) on 10 December 1813, incensing the Canadians. Many of the inhabitants were left without shelter, freezing to death in the snow. The British retaliated following their Capture of Fort Niagara on 18 December 1813. A British-Indian force led by Riall stormed the neighbouring town of Lewiston, New York on 19 December; four American civilians were killed by drunken Indians after the battle. **

True, but then, we never had to really have a revolution either. During the brief time when Canadian leaders started rebelling against the UK, they'd just hop over the border when the British troops came and went right back once they left :-p.

If there was no doubt, I think you'd have articles backing you up. As I said, I'm sure he had his flaws, but as outsider (Canadian-Mexican) looking in, he seemed pretty good even after both his terms. I can't say that for the Presidents that came after him.

Back before Biden was elected, I thought he was the better choice between him and Trump. I'm not so sure as I was back then. And above all, I miss the President he was Vice President of. Flawed, sure, but compared to what came after, definitely better in my view...

The problem here is that the people pretending to be male and female also think that term means man and woman. No one pretending to be female still identifies as a man. This is the underlying dishonesty of this whole argument. Again, the issue is how we define terms like male and female. A person who defines male and female as people who identify as such isn't "pretending" that a trans male is male, they are included in their definition of the term. The problem only arises when dealing with people who -don't- define male and female this way. I'm personally a cisgender male. In case you haven't heard of the term: ** 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 Anyway, for people who'd like to know if someone is a cisgender male/female or a transgender male/female, one can certainly ask.

Why do you need to distinguish anyone if the term male and female are not meaningless terms? A term that is broad does not mean that it is meaningless. However, if one wants to know if someone is -biologically- male or female, simply asking them this question should do the trick. The terms male and female were certainly broad before- they can refer not just to human males and females but to males and females of all sorts of different species. In order to ascertain what species is being referred to, simply adding the species' name before male or female clarifies things. The same principle applies with preceding male and female with whether we're speaking biologically or not.