Scott75

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.

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.