Scott75

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.

No, that's not true. I and others have simply expanded our definition of males and females to include people who while biologically of a given gender have chosen to identify as the other. Which... makes it meaningless. Go ahead, give me your definition of what a male and what a female is. Male: Someone who socially identifies as male. Female: Someone who socially identifies as female.

Oh... do I need to go back to asking why you are admitting to being a Pedophile before you get this? Your main issue here is that this is not a matter of a single person making up a definition for a word that no one else uses, presumably to offend the person they're using it against. There is now a sizeable group of people who define male and female as people who identify as such. I don't see why you think that modifying the definitions of terms like male and female to be defined as social constructs rather than biological ones makes the terms meaningless. We can always add biological before the terms if we want to ensure that we're talking about biological males and females.

However what you said later is that "we" can "choose ". And i was pointing out and establishing that it's not just a 'choice' that 'we' can make collectively or the like, if it's a 'right' for society then it must be a 'right' for the individual. I think that perhaps a good way to look at this is whether people should have the right to use the N word for blacks or the F word for gay people. This reminds me of a joke told by Dave Chappelle. I'll let him tell it: In summation, I think using the N word for blacks, the F word for gays and calling trans men women and trans women men in comedy can work if done right, but in other contexts, not so much. You make a lot of good points. I also agree that common decency and mutual respect are very important. I think that when those are applied well, the courts can be avoided, which I think works out best for everyone involved.

The sad thing is that many kids grow out of any of this confusion or angst or whatever you want to call it. These evil people want to convert them into being something they are not for their own selfish perversions. I agree that some kids grow out of wanting to get surgery and that those who do get it sometimes regret it. That being said, the number of trans people who regret transitioning it is apparently fairly low: How Often Do People Regret Transitioning? | Slate As to your notion that there are "evil people" who "want to convert" kids, I believe I did once hear about one or more hospitals who may have profited from transitioning some minor, but it doesn't seem like it's common. Below is an article that I don't agree with on all points, but seems to make a lot of good points regarding an article with a lot of bad references on transitioning: Transition Regret, Detransition, and Uncertainty | Gideon M-K: Health Nerd

I am saying that none of this is a "cure" Making themselves appear to be more like something they are not did not cure them of believing they are something they are not. Again, this all hinges on how a given person is defining words like male, female, etc. I think that most would agree that a biological male or female can't turn into the opposite biological gender. But if we're not talking about one's biological gender, it's a different matter.

Yes, they can, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's important to note the "we" part.

And I know for a fact that you are wrong. I, personally, have edited a left leaning page and confirmed that the change took place. That was my first and only edit. Could you elaborate on what you think I'm wrong -about-? I'm guessing you tried to explain it by referring to you having edited a left leaning page, but I don't see the connection.

It's a political, cultural, Hollywood and commercial attempt to push transgenderism on the American public, but the public has largely rejected it, thank God. Still, these scumbags are trying to groom America's kids. Whether you're in on the agenda or just some clueless bystander, the number of teenagers and young adults who identify as transgender has doubled from 2017 to 2022. Don't you find that suspicious? It's certainly indicative of -something-. As to what it's indicative of, I'm not sure. I suspect more than one factor is involved. I suspect that it may be partally because of certain chemicals: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7440-gender-bending-chemicals-found-to-feminise-boys/ https://loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00001&segmentID=7 I also suspect that it's partly because it's more acceptable to be trans. I don't necessarily think that's always a good thing. As I've said in the past, I think that if people were more accepting of people bending their social gender expression, there would be less of a perceived need to change one's physical appearance through hormones and surgery.

They are attempting to "normalize" extremely unnatural and confusing sexual kinks with children. That is completely unacceptable. I think the most important issue is the over emphasis on following gender norms. I suspect that if people could be more fluid in their social gender expression they would feel less of a need to change their physical appearance through hormones and surgery.

This is why you never use the word "gender" to define someone's sexuality - it's too ambiguous. The correct way to function in society is by a person's sex. I certainly agree that if you want to know someone's biological gender, asking for their gender may not get you that information. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "The correct way to function in society is by a person's sex"?