Michael Hardner

1. What would be the actual policy implementation of your "it's on them" approach? 2. I think that I answered that. They're women but they're different. 3. The definition of trans women is "dudes" who think they're women. No, that's something you wrote. 4. Conspiracies exist. And you think I'm part of one. Ok then. 5. Ok. Let's stop.

1. 😂 Meaning what? You can legally beat them up? Come on.... 2. Yes. Trans women are women but not the same as women who were born as such. That's why there are exceptions in law and elsewhere.. policy. I guess you call it. 3. I did to find it but you want me to use your definition. Not going to do that. 4. No, the word play is all yours. I'm answering your questions with politeness, and you seem to think I'm part of some conspiracy. Can we stop now? There is really nothing else to talk about. I don't enjoy answering your questions to have you come at with me with your peashooter...

1. I answered the question. I do NOT believe a trans woman has some right to be nude in front of biological women. That's the question, not whatever wordplay you wish to attempt. We agree and the answer is solid, a lot better than saying trans folks can't use a washroom (ANY washroom?) because "it's on them"... 2. Because trans women aren't exactly the same as women ? Maybe that will shut you up or maybe it will launch you into a tizzy of word carving again, I hope it's the former. Trans women are women though, just not exactly the same as every other woman which is why there are rules on this... everywhere.

1. Incorrect. 2. I didn't say I was more open minded. It seems we're the same on that front. Although it's pretty clear, you think you're better than me. 3. Incorrect. 4. You have me jumping through hoops, and when I satisfy your request, you simply reject my answer. Meanwhile, the answers you give are impractical and I think sometimes avoidant. 5. Yes I do. That is why I keep asking you to skip past our different definitions and get to the root of it. We actually agreed on something with regards to change rooms, and you seem to be unable to accept that. I have said, a few times. I think, frontal nudity only with consent. You never responded even though it's a point of agreement. I think it's because you you are hell bent on defeating me. Not very engaging. 6. Now this is obfuscation. We have come to an agreement, or close to it several times... Then you come back and insist on switching from the general to the specific or vice versa and then using language to say that I'm saying things that I'm not. It's not very engaging. I'm not going to give you the example, just look further up in the thread for it. But I said I was okay with men in women's spaces, as a general comment. You interpreted differently from how I intended and then started shrieking at me. It's not very engaging. 7. Aren't you pushing your position ? How is what I'm doing different? Oh right, it's because I'm wrong and you're better than me. Did I get it? ...... I'm just trying to find out how you arrive at your conclusions. We're not going to agree, you know that right?

1. 2. Yes, I'm even confusing myself at this point. Let me try again: It feels like you think I am ridiculous, crazy, and that your roll here is to talk sense into me rather than listening and engage with my ideas. Are you open to the idea that you could be wrong about things? I sure am. I've learned lots here from other people. Again, the point of discussion is that you arrive at the scene with the idea that it's a productive engagement, not a competition. Otherwise why am I here? You're only going to keep trying to beat me and I don't enjoy going back and forth over what words mean to us personally. 3. No we don't have to agree, but we have to understand the differences and where they come from I think. At least to a point. If you value personal freedom more than safety, or more than I do, for example... Example... You may not agree with police being able to detain without warrant, wiretap etc. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of a human being making a human assessment and coming up with a personal choice. This is the only interesting thing about this board, because I can learn the perspective of someone else and maybe change my mind. And that does happen. Otherwise it's just an insult board, or a shouting board.

Ok, well why would I want to discuss with someone who doesn't respect me? This speaks to a fundamental problem with this board. That is... It's a political discussion board but many people don't respect those they engage with.

Saying that I promote madness is clearly an insult. You have no respect for my position at all, so you shouldn't be discussing with me.

1. So you're not going to stop insulting me it seems. I don't blame you for walking away. You didn't want to discuss matters of importance, you only wanted me to use your language. Sorry to disappoint...

Meaningful is subjective. My definition is very meaningful. Sugar is sweet and women are feminine. Do you want to continue, or do you want to block the conversation on this point? It's not that interesting to just go back and forth like this is it? Probably more interesting to discuss how societies negotiate nudity etc.? There's nudity in public, in my town (Toronto). I don't feel comfortable with it, as there isn't always consent but it happens. Have you ever seen a nude person, including yourself?

I have always taken a firm stance against madness. I did define women. Anyway we can continue without agreeing on that, do you want to stop or continue?

I'm not a trained rat, jumping back and forth between little platforms you set up. If you can't work with my definition, I guess I'm not smart enough to discuss with you. I wish I was. Use your superior abilities to provide us a definition maybe. Or maybe the fact that we can't even agree on terms, to facilitate discussion... is itself the problem with the issue. I'm conservative, so I believe in discussion. Marxists established the tactic of jamming conversations so progress was impossible. I'll just leave that tidbit there...

Ok, woman refers to the feminine gender. Now can we move forward?

1. Not at all. You conflate your personal preference with facts. 2. I don't have to satisfy your criteria for words any more than you have to do for me. Woman is a gender, that's my definition. 3. Right. You're saying that I promote madness, then you state that it's a fact so it's ok. 4. And? People on here use the term baby for fertilized egg all the time, are you going to go to them with your word police act? My advice is: worry about your own words, not mine. And if you want to go beyond talking about definitions to things that matter then come up with neutral terms as I suggested. I'll wait.

1. I accept that you use the terms you use. It doesn't mean I have to use them. 2. I'm not asking you to not use trans madness as a term. I believe that people can use "woman" to define a gender. Many do. 3. You are not better than me in your word use. I think that you may mix up gender and sex for example. 4. You're using your subjective opinion as an excuse to insult and belittle me. As ever, this is about you thinking that you're the arbiter of language and expecting me to accept and use your language. Added : what-if you set some terms we can agree to?

1. I'm not arguing for it. I even accepted your wording. 2. No, I maintain that we have the same rules. If we used neutral wording, it would likely help. 3. So then you expect me to use the term "transgender madness" ? I won't. 4. I already explained, if there's consent.

1. Yes, but I didn't start this movement to change that. I'm accepting a popular use of the term. 2. It's not a game. You call them men, that's your definition. Respect others' choices of f vocabulary as I do. 3. 4. Just a paragraph about how you use the terms. Nothing to discuss there. 5. Better than you just restating the same thing with your preferred language. 6. You are being silly. We agree on the rules, you just want me to use your words. No, I won't .... This whole argument is about words now, as far as I can see.

1. Not me. It's being changed in the public sphere, nothing to do with you and me. 2. I'm not saying that. I don't think trans women can insist on being nude in front of biological females. That's the crux of the issue. 3. I can live with that definition. Surely the idea isn't new to you. 4. People have pushed for the idea that gender is social, people can feel like a woman etc. I'm fine with it. You said it doesn't bother you, but also you don't agree with it so that's where we stand. All that's left to do is work out a common set of rules.

1. We don't agree on the definition of woman. That's semantic, taxonomy, etc. We agree on the rules for nudity in practical terms. 2. I disagree and there's no resolution in sight.

1. labelling=taxonomy 2. By your definition it seems so. I think that the women need to consent to it though.

Well except for the taxonomy it seems we agree

Only answer to prevent what happened with Biden is to put in oversight but that would impose itself on Trump as well

I'd it's a private club, and they have trans clientele, for example, they could notify people that washrooms would be mixed if they so choose. That's one I can think of.

55 Posts on this thread... 🤔 We had two senile old men running for president in 2024.

Here: You pressed me to a yes/no answer on a general idea that trans women could share spaces with women. Since I had to pick a side, I picked yes... then you come back with an example that I would not be in favour of in all cases. I'm trying to say that there's nuance here, and when I brought up the case of women that look very much like men you say "it's on them" meaning I assume that they're not allowed in their own sex's bathroom either. It's not as cut and dried as you keep saying it is.

User: "Stop being specific ! Are you ok with men in women's spaces ?" Me: "I guess by your definition sure..." User: "So therefore you want little girls to be forced to look at penises !" Me: "Uh... no?" This the essence of the discussion... and accusing me of being dishonest and refusing to stop doing so is itself dishonest. The truth of the matter is that no person who would construct a long post like that about nothing, dodging, using word play, would have any interest or acknowledgement that some things are not objective facts but subjective and political matters. And that could only grow out of a big personal problem with trans people. That's not obfuscation, that is a fact... If anyone wants to discuss political issues I'm here...