Scott75

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

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