Scott75

What reality? If people with XX chromosomes aren't women then reality is impossible. I don't know what reality robosmith was referring to. As to having 2 XX chromosomes, that can certainly determine a person's sex or biological gender, but not necessarily one's gender. Again, it all depends on who's defining the term.

Such a simple question that Libbies have warped and now can't answer because it exposes their stupidity. Why are you so obsessed with sex? Three percent of American teens identify as trans. I am not convinced that simply telling them they aren’t will remedy their situation. We certainly know that people cannot “pray the gay away.” Trans people freak me out. And they probably freak you out. But that’s our problem, not their problem. They aren’t the way they are because they want us to be offended or disgusted or whatever. Why can't you answer a simple question? Hey Yak. I believe I know you from another forum or 2. Anyway, to be fair to Rebound, he wasn't responding to a question, but rather Nationalist's comment on the alleged simplicity of the question. I think Rebound made some good points, but not the questoin you apparently wanted him to answer, so I'll answer the question I believe you were referring to, that is, West's question of "What is a woman?". I'd say it all depends on who you ask. Some will say that a woman is an adult who was born biologically female. Others will say that a woman is an adult who identifies as a woman. Definitions can be whatever a group of people agree on. The issue here is that there are 2 definitions vying to become the winner. What we can call the old definition, the biological one, and the new one where any adult who identifies as a woman is one.

Ah, so you are part of these some I was referring to. Why do you believe this? I'm part of the sane group. Alright, so why do you believe that it's insane for homosexuals to be allowed to have kids? The homosexual agenda, for starters. Up until I looked it up just now, I hadn't heard of this "homosexual agenda", also known as the "gay agenda". Fortunately, Wikipedia was around to educate me on the matter. Here's their introduction to the term from their page on Gay Agenda: ** "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 I hadn't been until you mentioned it and I looked it up, again on Wikipedia. I now see why you mentioned it. From Wikipedia's introduction of the book: ** After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s is a 1989 book about LGBT rights in the United States by the neuropsychologist Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. The book has been described as advocating the use of propaganda to advance the cause of gay rights, and has been criticized by social conservatives as an expression of the "homosexual agenda". ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_the_Ball_(Kirk_and_Madsen_book)

The issue is that your attempt to change the definitions make no sense. You keep on seeming to think that this is somehow about me. For starters, I'm not even transgender- I support them in their struggle to have people use the gender they identify with, but it's not my personal struggle. Secondly, people have been modifying their definition of terms like male and female for some time now. What this is really about is that people like you don't want to call trans people by the gender they identify with. I admit I'm still not sure why.

The "appropriate standards of their biological sex"? Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Men who dress up like women need to respect boundaries. In other words, they are not welcome in women's bathrooms, nor are they to be in drag around children. Again, you're making several assumptions. The first is that trans women are not welcome in women's bathrooms. That only applies in -some- cases. As I've said before, I think that the ultimate solution is to have more gender neutral bathrooms. Gendered bathrooms reminds me a bit of the colored/white bathrooms. There are certainly differences, but there are also some definite similarities. As to "being in drag" around children, I suspect you mean people who haven't transitioned to the gender they've identified with. Because people who have would always look more like the gender they identify with regardless of how they dress. In any case, can you explain why you don't want people "in drag" to be around children?

I'm going to stick with the word "biological" and biologically speaking, your dear friends, the trannies, are not what or who they think they are. Actually, when it comes to biology, I think that most agree. I certainly haven't seen any trans people saying that they are -biologically- the gender they identify with. A point of commonality in a sea of disagreements. Those are important. 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. The second is your assumption that everyone agrees on the appropriate bathrooms for trans people. Again, it's patently obvious that this isn't the case. Now that I've cleard up the obvious, here's something that you may not know: Transgender teens with restricted bathroom access at higher risk of sexual assault | Harvard

I insult people when they are dishonest. You seem to be implying that I'm being dishonest. Is that the case? Can you give an example of what you consider to be "transexual behavior"? This notion that all transexual people have a common agenda is patently false. Even Matt Walsh, a decidedly conservative guy who created the documentary "What is a woman", which I watched, made it clear that different transexual people have different perspectives. Here's a quote from a trans man that I suspect might surprise you, starting at around the 55 minute mark: "I never fit, I was an alpha female, a sales executive that 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 that, well, maybe I am. I'm a biological woman that medically transitioned to appear like a male through synthetic hormones and surgery. I will never be a man. Is it transphobic for me to tell the truth? Why is it that a couple hundred years from now, if you dug up my body, they're gonna go yeah, that was a woman." Source: https://rumble.com/v2rpv4w-what-is-a-woman-matt-walsh-full-documentary.html The fact that different trans people have different ideas as to what constitutes a man or a woman doesn't really matter in the end though. Ultimately, socities as a whole will decide whether to expand gender definitions or not. I think that generally speaking, dictionaries are the final arbiter. Once you see dictionaries stating that males and females can include people who identify as a given gender but are not necessarily biologically of that gender, I think the general transformation of the terms will be complete, akin to homosexuals being able to marry. There are actually a lot of things that are labelled as woke that I don't like. To give an example, I have -not- been happy with recent Disney films, which a lot of people attribute to Disney going "woke". I'm fine with calling it something else, but I think there's a good reason that a lot of people have stopped watching a lot of their stuff. As to the trans movement, I'd say it's complicated. I think they over reacted in some cases, such as their reaction to J.K. Rowling, who created the Harry Potter series of books, when she voiced her views on the definition of a woman. What I think they -should- have done was converse with her more instead of shunning her. More conversation has been had and I think I now understand what happened there more clearly then I did at first. So yes, I think the key when it comes to trans issues is more conversations. I'm certainly doing my part.

If I may... Male and female genders are the means for which almost all life on Earth propagates. It is thus a rather important term. It has huge significance. If we're talking about the biological definitions of the terms, I agree. When it comes to what a given person identifies with, I think it's less so. I suspect you might agree with me there too. I'm not warping the biological distinction. I'm just saying that a good amount of people, including myself, have come to accept that some people of a given biological gender have decided that they'd rather identify as the opposite gender. This doesn't change the fact that their biological gender hasn't changed, ofcourse. I agree. I'm definitely not a fan of genetically modified crops. But we're not talking about that here. Words are created by people. Their definitions frequently change over time. Now, I will grant the possibility that those who'd like to keep the old definition of male and female may prevail. I doubt it though. I certainly think there is value in knowing the biological gender of people in certain scenarios, the most obvious of which has to do with pregnancies. But in many other contexts, I think society has become much too focused on gender differences when the fact of the matter is, both biological genders have a lot more similarities than they have differences.

Because they are not merely trying to act like the gender they are not. The fundamental issue here is that there are 2 groups of people. People who have expanded their definitions of male/female/etc. to include people who are biologically of one gender but identify with the other, and people who haven't. Ultimately, time will tell what definition prevails. I think it's clear that I think societies should favour the more expansive definition of the terms, and I think it's clear that you think the opposite.

Yeah, the cultural aspects of BEING a man or woman... Did you notice that Wikipedia didn't mention biological in its definition? I did not read anything you posted from there. That would explain your lack of understanding. I did, yes. Unfortunately, it requires that you actually read what I posted from Wikipedia.

You never understood what I was trying to convey to you. You took the first part of what I said and didn't even properly understand that part. Here's a quote of mine that you used: ** Words can have any meaning we wish. ** Source: https://repolitics.com/forums/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=54465&content_commentid=1761012 The part you overlooked was the "we" part. It's something that needs more than a single person. Here's what I said -after- that line that cements the fact that this is a thing of agreement, which implies a community, and finally becoming part of a tradition: ** I think a line from the well known science fiction author Frank Herbert is apt here: ** "Words can carry any burden we wish. All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build." ** ** Source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44439415-god-emperor-of-dune **

No, you're just trying to impose your definition of women on everyone else. LOL, it is not my definition. It is, but let's continue with what you were saying... Nope. It is THE definition and has been that for as long as we have defined man and woman in human history. Only in the last 5 minutes of human history, folks like you want to play these dishonest games to appease people and fabricate meaningless definitions to do so. First of all, your definition can't be "THE" definition if other folks are using a different one. Secondly, the fact that you're using the older definition automatically means that it's your own as well. Except, you are not merely wanting to change a definition over time, you want to change it to a fundamentally meaningless one. 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. For biological purposes, they can still be distinguished by simply preceding the term with biological. Another way is by using the term sex instead of gender, though I personally don't favour that approach as sex means something very different than one's biological gender as well.

Did you notice that Wikipedia is a dictionary that anyone can edit? That means any ol' piece of sh*t activist democrat can define something however he or she wants. That makes for a pretty shitty dictionary; wouldn't you agree? 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 As to Wikipedia in general, I don't always agree with its articles, but I find that it's generally a good place to start on a variety of topics, in large part because whatever the subject, it always includes at least one source article, which certainly isn't the case for many other articles out there.

Why do you care? I don’t care that you have an itty-bitty dick. Why are you so obsessed with other men’s penises? Maybe a tranny can theirs off and donate it to you so you can stop being so jealous of the rest of us. and again yet another lefty having weird sexual fantasies when they begin to lose an argument. At least you guys are consistent. I'd like to say that while I'd like to think that Rebound is trying to do the right thing, which I think is defending the trans community, I don't think what Rebound said starting with his "I don't care" line was helpful to the discussion in this thread. With that said... A lot of assertions here. I think the most dangerous one is that all transgender people and those who support them in some way are of the same mind on all of the issues you bring up. They're not. I do believe that calling trans people by the gender they identify with is hardly a hardship, especially considering the things many of them have gone through when they made the choice to identify as trans and/or get gender reassignment surgery. As to trans women wanting to compete in women's sports, I believe that biological women should have the right to compete in sports where only biological women are allowed, because biological men tend to have innate advantages in this area. As to bathrooms, I think the solution is to have more gender neutral bathrooms, perhaps eliminating gendered bathrooms completely. I know this has been done in some places and I think it's a good thing. I strongly believe that a large part of the -reason- there are so many people who want to identify as a gender they are not a part of biologically is because gender norms have become oppressive for many. It's funny, because when I was in high school, I remember having a debate in a class on whether there were any fundamental differences between men and women. At the time, I don't think there was any question that we were talking about biological men and women. I thought there were and the girl I liked most in the whole school thought there wasn't. There certainly are some differences- I think the most important one is that biological women are the only ones who can get pregnant and biological men are the only ones who can provide the sperm to impregate, but that while this is certainly important, it definitely doesn't change the fact that biological men and women aren't all that different at a fundamental level and the more our society recognizes this, the less I believe people will want to do things like have gender reassignment surgery. Making more gender neutral bathrooms is a start. As to what cartoon books do or don't show in schools, I think that's a debate I'll pass on for the time being. I don't have any kids of my own at this point, so it's certainly not an issue I have to decide on myself. I -do- believe that it would have been better if I'd gotten more education on sexuality in school myself, but mainly in terms of how to socially interact with girls, not so much how sex works (they did teach us that part starting in grade 7 I believe, and I think it was for the best). I haven't heard of this "not allowed to wear gigantic..." thing, but that sounds a tad strange. As to children suggesting that there are only 2 genders, I think the best thing is to have a discussion about it as we're having now. As to Israel, I'm solidly on the side of those who believe that Israel's currently committing a genocide in Gaza.

Because trannies are trying to shoehorn their agenda into the mainstream, and that's not acceptable. What agenda do you believe trans people have and why do you think it's not acceptable?

He still is a male. That's what's so sad about all of this. Biologically yes, but they -look- female and also identify as such. If they can afford the surgery and it makes them happy, shouldn't we be happy for them and respect their choice to be called she/her?

It doesn't. So is your argument that trans people all have cases of body dysmorphia before they have surgery? I think this may be true. But then, if someone who's trans undergoes surgery and then feels good about their body, wouldn't that work? Now, I'm not saying that there couldn't be other ways to get them to feel good about their body, but if they're an adult, I think the way they choose should be their choice to make, so long as they're footing the bill. Things get more complicated if the where to foot some or all of the bill, but I'm not sure if that's actually done anywhere.

We know that's not accurate. It's not quite so simple as being a choice but it is definitely in many cases not biological. Or at least not exclusively biological at all. Environmental factors play a large role. In those cases where it is purely biological it's a disorder and needs to be treated as such. Talking about there is the Hardcore gender dysphoria victims Could you elaborate on a case where it's "purely biologicaly"? I genuinely have no knowledge of any case like this and am curious.

People don't decide to become trans. They are born trans. It is not a choice. The choise comes when the individual chooses to have gender re-assignment surgery that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Even then, In Canada, the [person] needs to be assessed before surgery. At the Menard Clinic, candidates who have already been assessed, are in the clinic for a month for rigourous counselling before surgery. Transitioning is a long and expensive procedure. F2M transition is more expensive than M2F. I certainly don't always agree with User, but I see that he responded to your post in post #90 and no one responded to prior to my own response just now, is a good one. For those who don't want to click on any links, here's what User said in response to Queenmandy's post: ** So, when a confused kid is convinced they are trans, they identify as trans, get talked into surgery and drugs (while still a kid) and then they figure out later in life it was all a mistake, were they born trans or not? ** So in summation, I think I should have said "decide to identify as trans" rather than saying "decide to become trans", but User's point is very valid and I think one that a lot of the trans community and those who support them are averse to dealing with.

We've certainly not always agreed on things in relation to trans people, but the point you made here, which I see no one responded to, is a very good one.

But as a culture based on individual rights, if you make that argument on a national or cultural level and you have to also allow for it on a personal level. Which means you have to give individuals the freedom to define men or women biologically exclusively if that's what they want. What I find rather ironic is that I actually agreed with what you're saying above in the very post you're referring to. After the bit you quoted, I said: I've done some thinking about this. I've read that some people in professional capacities have been fired for not using people's preferred pronouns and been rewarded damages: https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/01/us/kansas-teacher-suspend-settle/index.html Conversely, I've read of employees who were fired -because- they listed their pronouns in emails: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/nyregion/houghton-university-employees-pronouns.html The bottom line, ofcourse, is what -should- be happening? I -think- we can agree that a person listing the pronouns they would like used with them should be fine and shouldn't get one fired. As to whether people should respect the pronouns they'd like, I think so, but I also think there should be limits. I'm fine with using he for a trans male and she for a trans female, even 'eir' or 'they' for someone who doesn't consider themselves to be a he or a she. But I've heard there are a lot more pronouns and I'm resistant to having to use even more. Perhaps I may change in time here. As to my acceptance of using the pronouns wished for above, I suspect it has a lot to do with my interactions with trans people. I've conversed with a trans man in a men's circle where he shared he was beaten up for being trans to the point that he now has difficulty walking- I know this because I asked him why he had difficulty walking. Is it really so hard to call him a man even though he's biologically a woman? I don't think so. Much easier than what he's had to go through for the choice he made, that's for sure.

But it's best to keep the meaning of words as universal as possible. That way we don't have to let pervert degenerates like Bill Clinton confuse the word "is". I don't know how Bill Clinton allegedly used the word "is", but there are a fair amount of people who now include trans people into the definitions of the gender they identify with and I personally think that's a good thing. As mentioned elsewhere, I still think it's good to be able to differentiate between people who are biologically of a given gender (what some call "sex") and those who only identify as said gender, such as for sports competitions that wish to only have people of the female biological gender involved in said competition.

Twice, I've been asked questions by the same poster that I think amount to clear harassment involving the word ped******. Here are the posts in question: https://repolitics.com/forums/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=54465&content_commentid=1760978 https://repolitics.com/forums/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=54465&content_commentid=1761015 I reported both of these posts as harassment, the first one a while ago and I've just reported the second one, but so far I haven't gotten a response and I just wanted to make sure that this kind of thing isn't permitted.

Why did you just admit to being a pedophile AGAIN? OMG. I have once again reported you for harassment.

Let's not forget that all trans people were once kids too. Great. Then trannies can dress up as kids and play with each other. You missed the point I was trying to make. My point is, why do some people identify as trans? Even experts aren't sure, but I think the following text from the American Psychological Association is interesting: ** Why are some people transgender? There is no single explanation for why some people are transgender. The diversity of transgender expression and experiences argues against any simple or unitary explanation. Many experts believe that biological factors such as genetic influences and prenatal hormone levels, early experiences, and experiences later in adolescence or adulthood may all contribute to the development of transgender identities. ** Source: Understanding transgender people, gender identity and gender expression | American Psychological Association It's clear that some kids feel like they're transgender early on. I for one think they should be given the resources to deal with this as best they can. See, that's the beauty of mental health professionals and facilities. They can take the trannies in and help them work through their mental disorders. My suggestion would be that the trannies stay in treatment facilities until they feel empowered to act within the appropriate standards of their biological sex. The "appropriate standards of their biological sex"? Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?