Public Washrooms

[User]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Seriously ?  It's been five days... I thought this was done... Ok I will respond when i can then...

Well, when you dissect comments and create large responses... it takes time. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, User said:

1. Easy... it is a dude that looks like a lady.  You want to throw out all common sense here for the most extreme example. This is why we just set the rule that men use men's facilities and women use women's facilities. If a man or woman does such a good job as pretending to be something they are not, it is on them. 

2. You don't understand the difference between laws and policy?

3. The point was clear. You are obfuscating ...

4. LOL, so first you say no, but then you go on to say it could be your main argument. Then you go on to answer my other questions in the affirmative. 

5. Because you keep being hyper-specific to avoid answering. Glad you finally did here, that you are OK with dudes going into women's spaces. 

6. ... you are just fine with dudes in women's spaces. 

7.  We are going to fundamentally disagree here, in that women should feel safe and confident in a changing room, that they won't have a male in there with them getting naked and exposing themselves or seeing them as they might be in various stages of undressing. 

8.  I care about this because women do too. Women have complained about the madness of forcing these dudes into their spaces. 

9.  See, this is the obfuscation I am talking about. You hyper focus on boxing. So, you are just fine with men beating women in every other physical competition?

10. My point is the same as above, if someone wants to alter themselves and their appearance to the extreme point they look convincingly like something they are not, it is their problem. Not mine. 

11. If you walk around covered in body piercings and tattoos, you don't get to complain that people stare at you and treat you differently.

12. More obfuscation. 

13. If they are both-sex bathrooms, that is not a woman's space. 

14. That was not my assertion. You can declare yourself to be anything you want, it doesn't make you that thing. This is a simple statement of reality. 

15. You are avoiding this because it is more obfuscation so you can avoid having to admit the truth because you support the trans madness. 

16. Nope. 

17. Yeah, I know what I said, but you still refuse to acknowledge that you were interjecting crap about me personally that is irrelevant. 

18. If I sit here characterizing you as being an emotional cry baby... does that add anything to the discussion? No. We agreed to keep things to the points being made, not make it personal. You forget that?

19. That which can be asserted without facts, evidence, or logic can be rejected without it as well. 

1. What does that mean "it's on them" ?  What do you mean by 'extreme example' ?  I see lots of extreme examples cited in support of policy, by Republicans.  This includes random assaults and crimes of violence that happen everywhere.  Why do we want to eliminate extreme examples sometimes and not others ?  Oh, I know... because of politics.  Because it helps people rally the unknowing to their cause.  I can't see any other reason.

2. To my mind, policy is the implementation of laws.  I just want to check if that's what you mean also.

3. If you accuse me of obfuscating then you're saying that I'm INTENTIONALLY making something unclear.  If you think I'm using dirty tricks in this conversation, then stop talking to me.  I'm not spending my lunch hour replying to this because I'm intellectually dishonest.  if you think I am, then it only makes sense to walk away.

4.  I don't get why you're LOLing at this but ok, you seem satisfied.

5. The conversation warrants being specific, I would say.  If you don't want specific answers, how does that help clarify anything ?  You ask general questions and expect me to answer.

6. By your definition, it seems that yes I do sometimes.

7.  OMG... seems like now you're getting specific !  I didn't say any of those specific things are ok.  Please note I'm not accusing you of being dishonest (which is what you're doing to me) but being unclear.  There are lots of types of change rooms... I don't think that every change room should demand both-sex nudity but you never asked that.

8.  Yeah, I trust you're being honest here which is why I'm talking to you.  If you continue to accuse me of obfuscating, lyring and being dishonest though then the rules change and I'll assume you are trolling.

9. Yes I'm fine with males and females competing in other competitions, context being primary here.  Specifics matter.  Are you going to ban women from auto racing ?  Darts ?  Be specific.

10. It's your problem because you decide that you're part of the discussion.   As such, you should have an idea of what to do about it.  Deny bathroom status ?  "Who shall bell the cat" ?

11. I agree with that, but we do allow self-expression so you have to deal with it.  I don't feel "safe" with biker dudes around my kid, so it seems using your precepts I can demand that they be excluded from the YMCA change room I guess.

12. Oh, now I get it ... you think questions are obfuscation.  Simple: just answer them.  

13.  Yes, that's true

14. Reality is objective but identity is subjective.  I can't declare abortion to be murder, either, because it's not regarded as objectively being murder by our institutions (and public)  The definition of gender, which I looked up, seems to allow for it to change even if you don't personally believe that.  I respect your choices though...

15. "Trans madness" is obfuscation.  Not answering questions is obfuscation.  If one accepts some trans accommodations are they "mad" ?  You yourself accept some right ?

16.  Oh, too bad.  I wish we were.   This conversation is only about clarifying terms so far and as such is not interesting to me or probably anyone else.  Can we just agree to disagree ? 

17.  I think I accepted your claim that you don't have a problem with trans folks, so we're done on that front.  We only need you to accept that I'm not trying to obfuscate the argument.  Why would I ?  We're not going to come to any conclusion...

18. Yes, I would say that I moved beyond my assessment of your rationale by now.  But politics is necessary somewhat 'personal' since we are human beings with our own experiences and preferences.  I'm not going to call you names, though, assuming you stop accusing me of lying/obfuscating...

19. Some things aren't factual, which is why politics exist.  Values, attitudes and perspectives all have an emotional basis and we have politics to grease the wheels of social function, that's it.

Ok... can't we agree to disagree on this now ?  We're not going to convince each other.  

[User]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. What does that mean "it's on them" ?  What do you mean by 'extreme example' ?  I see lots of extreme examples cited in support of policy, by Republicans.  This includes random assaults and crimes of violence that happen everywhere.  Why do we want to eliminate extreme examples sometimes and not others ?  Oh, I know... because of politics.  Because it helps people rally the unknowing to their cause.  I can't see any other reason.

Why do you keep asking me to define things that are already a common phrase?

It means just that. If someone is going to choose to do something outside of norms that would put them in a position to have to deal with any policies or laws it might conflict with... it is on them. I don't have to figure out how to accommodate them. They put themselves in that position. 

I already pointed out the picture you were showing was an extreme example, so why do you keep asking me to define things like this?

You continue on later to complain about my saying you are obfuscating, well, if you are going to keep engaging in these tactics whether you intended to or not, I will keep calling you out for them. 

Just as I can't see any other reason for what you are doing, it is a way to justify your wanting to force this trans madness onto women. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. To my mind, policy is the implementation of laws.  I just want to check if that's what you mean also.

Except, we were breaking this down beyond laws, bringing up what schools do too. 

Not everything is a law, nor needs to be. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. If you accuse me of obfuscating then you're saying that I'm INTENTIONALLY making something unclear.  If you think I'm using dirty tricks in this conversation, then stop talking to me.  I'm not spending my lunch hour replying to this because I'm intellectually dishonest.  if you think I am, then it only makes sense to walk away.

No. I won't stop talking to you. I will just keep calling out what it appears you are doing in these discussions. If you don't like that, stop posting on a public forum or change the way you post. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

4.  I don't get why you're LOLing at this but ok, you seem satisfied.

I am laughing at how you say no, but then go on to confirm it was a yes. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. The conversation warrants being specific, I would say.  If you don't want specific answers, how does that help clarify anything ?  You ask general questions and expect me to answer.

You are not seeking clarity when you choose to not answer the question and instead focus on something specific I didn't ask. 

If you don't think I am being clear, then ask. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. By your definition, it seems that yes I do sometimes.

OK. When don't you? You want to keep saying my questions are too broad, like there are some kind of exceptions out there... so, can you name one? What is a traditional woman's-only space you think a trans woman has no business going into?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

7.  OMG... seems like now you're getting specific !  I didn't say any of those specific things are ok.  Please note I'm not accusing you of being dishonest (which is what you're doing to me) but being unclear.  There are lots of types of change rooms... I don't think that every change room should demand both-sex nudity but you never asked that.

And you are not disagreeing with me now. You are just saying you didn't say it was OK. So... is it OK?

I also did not say anything about "demand" nudity either. Have you never been in a public locker room? People get undressed or will be in various stages of being undressed in them. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

8.  Yeah, I trust you're being honest here which is why I'm talking to you.  If you continue to accuse me of obfuscating, lyring and being dishonest though then the rules change and I'll assume you are trolling.

Assume what you want, I am calling you out for what you are saying here. The fact that you don't think you are obfuscating doesn't change what you are saying. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

9. Yes I'm fine with males and females competing in other competitions, context being primary here.  Specifics matter.  Are you going to ban women from auto racing ?  Darts ?  Be specific.

I said physical competition. Then you bring up auto racing. Then you wonder why I say you are obfuscating?

You focused on boxing... do I really need to spell out every physical competition? There is a reason why we have women only categories in almost every physical sport. Everything from Tennis, Basketball, Soccer, Weight lifting, swimming, the list goes on and on and on. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

10. It's your problem because you decide that you're part of the discussion.   As such, you should have an idea of what to do about it.  Deny bathroom status ?  "Who shall bell the cat" ?

Not my problem. Talking about it doesn't make it my problem. I don't have to have an idea for what to do about it.

This is your ruse to try to argue that because there is some extreme example, then women should be just fine with some dude with a beard wearing a dress in their bathroom. It is absurd. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

11. I agree with that, but we do allow self-expression so you have to deal with it.  I don't feel "safe" with biker dudes around my kid, so it seems using your precepts I can demand that they be excluded from the YMCA change room I guess.

Nope. My position is pretty clear. It is the women's change room. The expectation is then that only women actually use it. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

12. Oh, now I get it ... you think questions are obfuscation.  Simple: just answer them.  

I did, in the next sentence. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

13.  Yes, that's true

OK

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

14. Reality is objective but identity is subjective.  I can't declare abortion to be murder, either, because it's not regarded as objectively being murder by our institutions (and public)  The definition of gender, which I looked up, seems to allow for it to change even if you don't personally believe that.  I respect your choices though...

Well, since you did not actually respond to my comment, here you are again:

You can declare yourself to be anything you want, it doesn't make you that thing. This is a simple statement of reality. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

15. "Trans madness" is obfuscation.  Not answering questions is obfuscation.  If one accepts some trans accommodations are they "mad" ?  You yourself accept some right ?

LOL, so you complain all this time about me using the term... then use it yourself? Not a facepalm emoji big enough... 

No, trans madness is simply what I call what you and others are engaged in pushing onto society right now. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

16.  Oh, too bad.  I wish we were.   This conversation is only about clarifying terms so far and as such is not interesting to me or probably anyone else.  Can we just agree to disagree ? 

No one is forcing you to participate on a public forum. 

No, there is no agree to disagree. You are pushing a fundamentally false thing. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

17.  I think I accepted your claim that you don't have a problem with trans folks, so we're done on that front.  We only need you to accept that I'm not trying to obfuscate the argument.  Why would I ?  We're not going to come to any conclusion...

No... you continue to push this and have yet to acknowledge what you were doing, and now you just want to move on. Why would you obfuscate? Because you have an agenda to push trans madness...

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

19. Some things aren't factual, which is why politics exist.  Values, attitudes and perspectives all have an emotional basis and we have politics to grease the wheels of social function, that's it.

So, you admit your assertion was not one of fact?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok... can't we agree to disagree on this now ?  We're not going to convince each other.  

No. When you post on this stuff in a thread I am interested in, I will call you out for it. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, User said:

1. Why do you keep asking me to define things that are already a common phrase?

2. It means just that. If someone is going to choose to do something outside of norms that would put them in a position to have to deal with any policies or laws it might conflict with... it is on them. I don't have to figure out how to accommodate them. They put themselves in that position. 

I already pointed out the picture you were showing was an extreme example, so why do you keep asking me to define things like this?

3. You continue on later to complain about my saying you are obfuscating, well, if you are going to keep engaging in these tactics whether you intended to or not, I will keep calling you out for them.  Just as I can't see any other reason for what you are doing, it is a way to justify your wanting to force this trans madness onto women. 

4. Except, we were breaking this down beyond laws, bringing up what schools do too. 

5 .No. I won't stop talking to you. I will just keep calling out what it appears you are doing in these discussions. If you don't like that, stop posting on a public forum or change the way you post. 

 

 

1. Because you read things into my responses that are not correct.
2. Ok so the law would be "if you are not a lady or you don't look like a conventional woman" you can't use the bathroom.  That seems to be what you're saying it would have to be, to be a common sense type law.
3. Calling them 'tactics' means you say I'm doing it on purpose.  I'm Not.  So you're insulting me and defying the rule that said we wouldn't get personal.
4. Ok I see now... school policy.
5.  Fine then let's just admit this is all based on you being weirded out by trans people and not being comfortable with them.  That's what is driving this, and unfortunately all of the logical decorations you hang on your hangup don't fly.

I'll leave the rest of my response until you acknowledge that you don't like trans people and the tactic of saying otherwise is dishonest.  If not, prove it - name the trans people who you like and respect, and prove otherwise.  Because clearly there's something at play here beyond your snug logial games that really bugs you about trans people, and causes you to obfuscate the issue into word games.

I'll await your response.

[Michael Hardner]

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...  

[User]

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Because you read things into my responses that are not correct.

Such as? If that happens, point it out. 

49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Ok so the law would be "if you are not a lady or you don't look like a conventional woman" you can't use the bathroom.  That seems to be what you're saying it would have to be, to be a common sense type law.

No, this is very simple. The women's restroom is for women, and the men's is for men. Doesn't have to be the law, this is just common sense and policy of the places with the bathrooms. When you know for a fact some transwoman is in fact a man, you don't say oh well, they identify as a woman, so you just have to be OK with it. 

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Calling them 'tactics' means you say I'm doing it on purpose.  I'm Not.  So you're insulting me and defying the rule that said we wouldn't get personal.

If you are insulted because I criticize what you say here, that is on you; my comments are focused on what you say. No more an "insult" than you saying I am reading into what you say. 

53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5.  Fine then let's just admit this is all based on you being weirded out by trans people and not being comfortable with them.  That's what is driving this, and unfortunately all of the logical decorations you hang on your hangup don't fly.

Nope. I have been quite consistent and clear. What is driving this is that you and folks like you are pushing this trans madness onto others and society. I don't have to play, I don't have to agree, and I will oppose it every step of the way. 

Men are men. Women are women. Men who think they are women are still men. They have inherent physical advantages and it is not fair or just to expect weaker women to have to physically compete against them or share their traditionally women only spaces with them, just because you want to placate the delusions of someone. 

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'll leave the rest of my response until you acknowledge that you don't like trans people and the tactic of saying otherwise is dishonest. 

Why would I acknowledge something that is not true?

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If not, prove it

I don't have to prove anything... it is your assertion. 

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Me: Should women have to compete against men in physical competition?

You: I don't think they should have to box against men

Me: That is not what I asked, you hyper-focused on boxing, not physical sports

You: Well, what about auto racing? I don't understand what you mean by physical sports... 

Me: Dear Lord man, do I have to spell out everything? You get the point. Swimming, track, basketball... men are stronger than women in all these things, they have an unfair advantage, its the whole point we have women's categories for them. 

Yeah, that is the essence of the discussion and I never said you were dishonest, you infer that. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.  

Once again... you have to resort to making it personal. I will take that as a concession to your ability to actually produce any kind of good argument or response to what I am saying. 

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, User said:

Such as? If that happens, point it out. 

Here:

 

Quote

you are just fine with dudes in women's spaces. 

We are going to fundamentally disagree here, in that women should feel safe and confident in a changing room, that they won't have a male in there with them getting naked and exposing themselves or seeing them as they might be in various stages of undressing. 

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]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

So... "in all cases"... what does that even mean?

Just like before, you still didn't commit to an answer here. 

So, there are some cases where you are cool with a dude undressing in a women's locker room in front of women, but not others?

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

That is literally the only thing you have to hang on to... that if a woman or man can make themselves look convincingly enough like the opposite sex, then its totally cool! 

That is not nuance. 

Whatever ramifications happen with people mistaking them for looking like something they are not is on them. That is their problem. Maybe they shouldn't try to look like something they are not... and if they do look convincingly like something they are not... how would anyone know?

Its like I say about carrying a concealed firearm into a business that does not allow it. 

How will they ever know?

So, to the point, it is not my problem to solve, this is the risk they take and it is on them to figure out. 

However... those are the very extreme cases, because yet again, the average trans woman clearly looks like some dude dressed up like a woman. 

I was in San Francisco last month and I can't even keep count of all the crazy dudes wearing dresses. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, User said:

So... "in all cases"... what does that even mean?

 

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.

[User]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

If the club has labeled it trans-inclusive or universal, then it is not a woman-only space. I would still take issue if they refused to offer a woman-only or private space, but there is a difference between what they can do and what they should do. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, User said:

If the club has labeled it trans-inclusive or universal, then it is not a woman-only space. I would still take issue if they refused to offer a woman-only or private space, but there is a difference between what they can do and what they should do. 

 

Well except for the taxonomy it seems we agree 

[User]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Well except for the taxonomy it seems we agree 

No, we don't. I asked you for an exception, you tried and failed to offer one. Once it becomes labeled something other than a woman's only space... then it is no longer an an exception to what we were talking about with women's only spaces being only for women. 

We are right back to the question:

So... "in all cases"... what does that even mean?

Just like before, you still didn't commit to an answer here. 

So, there are some cases where you are cool with a dude undressing in a women's locker room in front of women, but not others?

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, User said:

1. No, we don't. I asked you for an exception, you tried and failed to offer one. Once it becomes labeled something other than a woman's only space... then it is no longer an an exception to what we were talking about with women's only spaces being only for women. 

2. So, there are some cases where you are cool with a dude undressing in a women's locker room in front of women, but not others?

1. labelling=taxonomy 

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

[User]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. labelling=taxonomy 

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

Yeah, I know what it means, we don't agree. The entire point of the discussion was women's only spaces are for women. 

If you are going to label them universal or trans friendly spaces, then they are no longer women's only spaces. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, User said:

1. Yeah, I know what it means, we don't agree. The entire point of the discussion was women's only spaces are for women. 

2. If you are going to label them universal or trans friendly spaces, then they are no longer women's only spaces. 

 

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.  

 

[User]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

LOL. So now we are going to your trying to change the definition of woman!?

So why have you spent this whole time arguing about women's only spaces with me if in the end, you are just going to say they are still women's only spaces, because the dude undress in them is really a woman!

That is what you are saying now, that the man undressing himself with a penis in front of the women... is a woman too?

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I disagree and there's no resolution in sight.  

OK, I know you disagree, but you certainly can't muster up a compelling argument. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, User said:

1. So now we are going to your trying to change the definition of woman!?

2. So why have you spent this whole time arguing about women's only spaces with me if in the end, you are just going to say they are still women's only spaces, because the dude undress in them is really a woman!

3. That is what you are saying now, that the man undressing himself with a penis in front of the women... is a woman too?

4. OK, I know you disagree, but you certainly can't muster up a compelling argument. 

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.

[User]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not me.  It's being changed in the public sphere, nothing to do with you and me.

Sigh. Yes, it is literally you. You said:

"We don't agree on the definition of woman."

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

I love how now, after you got caught making a bad argument, you want to play the game of labeling folks "trans-women" and "biological females"

The crux of the issue is that biological females are women and we have women's only spaces and you can't figure out how to support your trans madness now without also saying you are perfectly fine with a dude undressing with women in their women only spaces. 

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I can live with that definition.  Surely the idea isn't new to you.

Yeah, I know you can live with this absurdity, you are here pushing it. 

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

That is not what I said. This is not a compelling argument, just you saying you are fine with it. 

So... we are back to where we started. You still have not come up with an exception to show you are not OK with dudes undressing in women's spaces... because you think they are women. 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

45 minutes ago, User said:

1. Sigh. Yes, it is literally you. You said:

"We don't agree on the definition of woman."

2. I love how now, after you got caught making a bad argument, you want to play the game of labeling folks "trans-women" and "biological females"

3. The crux of the issue is that biological females are women and we have women's only spaces and you can't figure out how to support your trans madness now without also saying you are perfectly fine with a dude undressing with women in their women only spaces. 

4. Yeah, I know you can live with this absurdity, you are here pushing it. 

5. That is not what I said. This is not a compelling argument, just you saying you are fine with it. 

6. So... we are back to where we started. You still have not come up with an exception to show you are not OK with dudes undressing in women's spaces... because you think they are women. 

 

 

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.

 

[User]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Yes, but I didn't start this movement to change that.  I'm accepting a popular use of the term.

You are not just passively accepting it, you are here arguing for it and using it. You are not some wayward victim of society, YOU are the part of that society pushing this trans madness. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. It's not a game.  You call them men, that's your definition.  Respect others' choices of f vocabulary as I do.

It certainly is a game. You completely avoided my point, that you spent this whole time using the same definitions as I was and it was only now, when I caught you in a bad argument you could not escape from, you pivot to making this not an argument about dudes in women's spaces, but that you think the dudes are women too!

Even your plea to respect peoples choices of vocabulary is absolute nonsense. If words don't have any meaning, we can't communicate. Even now... I bet you can't even define the word woman in any meaningful way. You can't say you respect others choices of vocabulary when their choices conflict. It is one or the other. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. 4. Just a paragraph about how you use the terms.  Nothing to discuss there.

So, yet again, we are back to where you were saying that a trans woman should not be in a woman's locker room in various stages of undressing in front of women... after I called you out for that. So... how do you reconcile your new change of scope to saying trans women are really women with that?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. Better than you just restating the same thing with your preferred language.

It is no more my preferred language than yours... but can you even define woman in any meaningful way? 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. You are being silly.  We agree on the rules, you just want me to use your words. No, I won't 

OK, so back to where we were... you are just fine with a transwoman undressing in front of women in women's spaces to where the are exposed to the transwomans penis. 

Feel free to explain how you are not. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, User said:

1. You are not just passively accepting it, you are here arguing for it and using it. You are not some wayward victim of society, YOU are the part of that society pushing this trans madness. 

2. It certainly is a game. You completely avoided my point, that you spent this whole time using the same definitions as I was and it was only now, when I caught you in a bad argument you could not escape from, you pivot to making this not an argument about dudes in women's spaces, but that you think the dudes are women too!

3. Even your plea to respect peoples choices of vocabulary is absolute nonsense. If words don't have any meaning, we can't communicate.  

4. OK, so back to where we were... you are just fine with a transwoman undressing in front of women in women's spaces to where the are exposed to the transwomans penis. 

Feel free to explain how you are not. 

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.

[User]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm not arguing for it.  I even accepted your wording.

If you accepted my wording, we would not be discussing this now. You would not have just said all the things you did before, like: your preferred language—that's your definition—tell me to respect others' choice of vocabulary...

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. No, I maintain that we have the same rules.  If we used neutral wording, it would likely help.

If you accept my wording... we don't need "neutral" wording. 

This is why what you are doing is just a silly game to push trans madness, the same reason you ignore my asking you to define the word woman in any meaningful way. 

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. So then you expect me to use the term "transgender madness" ?  I won't.

More obfuscation. I am not asking you to use that term, we are talking about your redefining words and rejecting truth around their meaning and pushing subjective respect how others define words. 

I am not redefining the term transgender or madness and expecting you to think those words mean something it doesn't. 

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. I already explained, if there's consent.

I already explained how this is not an answer. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, User said:

1. If you accepted my wording, we would not be discussing this now. You would not have just said all the things you did before, like: your preferred language—that's your definition—tell me to respect others' choice of vocabulary...

If you accept my wording... we don't need "neutral" wording. 

2. This is why what you are doing is just a silly game to push trans madness, the same reason you ignore my asking you to define the word woman in any meaningful way. 

3. ... rejecting truth around their meaning and pushing subjective respect how others define words. 

4. I am not redefining the term transgender or madness and expecting you to think those words mean something it doesn't. 

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?

Edited Wednesday at 07:43 PM by Michael Hardner

[User]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I accept that you use the terms you use.  It doesn't mean I have to use them.

You just flip-flopped again.

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

I know you were not asking me to not use the term... the point was that you were conflating my using a term you don't like with distorting the definition of the word woman that you are doing. 

And once again... you did not define the term woman in any meaningful way. 

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. You are not better than me in your word use.  I think that you may mix up gender and sex for example.

Yes, I am. Which is why you continue to avoid providing a meaningful definition to woman. 

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. You're using your subjective opinion as an excuse to insult and belittle me.

Nothing I said here was an insult to you or belittling you. My comments are focused on what you are saying here. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

As ever, this is about you thinking that you're the arbiter of language and expecting me to accept and use your language.

No more than you are me with your still undefined version of what woman means... 

The definitions I am using were the definitions for all of human existence up until about 5 minutes ago when you folks started pushing the trans madness. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Added : what-if you set some terms we can agree to?

When are you going to define woman in any meaningful way?

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, User said:

1. ... the point was that you were conflating my using a term you don't like with distorting the definition of the word woman that you are doing. 

2. And once again... you did not define the term woman in any meaningful way. 

3. Nothing I said here was an insult to you or belittling you. My comments are focused on what you are saying here. 

4. The definitions I am using were the definitions for all of human existence up until about 5 minutes ago when you folks started pushing the trans madness. 

5. When are you going to define woman in any meaningful way?

 

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.