Public Washrooms

[User]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not at all.  You conflate your personal preference with facts.

How so? I outlined what you did... all you do is say no and make a baseless assertion in response. 

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

You are the one pushing your definition here, so yeah, if you have a point to make, you do need to support it. Saying that woman is a gender is not a definition. Its like saying a basketball is a ball. As I figured, you can't define it. Just like all the others pushing this trans madness, there is no meaningful definition you can provide, because as soon as you do, it will show how what you are pushing is nonsense. You just want to be able to say a man can be a woman and the moment you actually define the terms, that will fall apart. 

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Right.  You're saying that I promote madness, then you state that it's a fact so it's ok.  

You are promoting the trans madness, as evidenced by your refusal to offer any meaningful definition of the word woman and inability to explain how what you push doesn't result in some dude in the woman locker room undressing in front of women or some dude destroying a woman in swimming, running, or any other physical sport. 
 

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. And?   

LOL

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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?

Oh, you are a believer in the magic birth canal, I see. Did you ever have kids? I don't think I have ever met anyone that refers to their unborn child as just a fertilized egg. 

You can't define woman, so you are desperately flailing around to grab onto some other distraction now. 

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Once again... you are on a public forum pushing absurd nonsense and wanting to harm women with your indifference to them in their spaces and activities. I am going to call you out for it. 

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'll wait.

I will continue to wait for you to define woman in a meaningful way too. 

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, User said:

How so? I outlined what you did... all you do is say no and make a baseless assertion in response. 

You are the one pushing your definition here, so yeah, if you have a point to make, you do need to support it. Saying that woman is a gender is not a definition. Its like saying a basketball is a ball. As I figured, you can't define it. Just like all the others pushing this trans madness, there is no meaningful definition you can provide, because as soon as you do, it will show how what you are pushing is nonsense. You just want to be able to say a man can be a woman and the moment you actually define the terms, that will fall apart. 

You are promoting the trans madness, as evidenced by your refusal to offer any meaningful definition of the word woman and inability to explain how what you push doesn't result in some dude in the woman locker room undressing in front of women or some dude destroying a woman in swimming, running, or any other physical sport. 
 

LOL

Oh, you are a believer in the magic birth canal, I see. Did you ever have kids? I don't think I have ever met anyone that refers to their unborn child as just a fertilized egg. 

You can't define woman, so you are desperately flailing around to grab onto some other distraction now. 

Once again... you are on a public forum pushing absurd nonsense and wanting to harm women with your indifference to them in their spaces and activities. I am going to call you out for it. 

I will continue to wait for you to define woman in a meaningful way too. 

Ok, woman refers to the feminine gender.

Now can we move forward?

[User]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, woman refers to the feminine gender.

Now can we move forward?

That is not a definition, you said it "refers" to the "feminine" gender. 

That is basically saying a woman is a woman. It is meaningless. 

Feminine is defined as having the characteristics of a woman. 

So... we are back to asking you to define what a woman is in any meaningful way. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, User said:

That is not a definition, you said it "refers" to the "feminine" gender. 

That is basically saying a woman is a woman. It is meaningless. 

Feminine is defined as having the characteristics of a woman. 

So... we are back to asking you to define what a woman is in any meaningful way. 

 

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...

[User]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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...

You are the one pushing this trans madness. Whats wrong? You are unable to support it now?

Don't worry, I knew all along you could not define Woman. I already explained this earlier. The moment you provide any meaningful definition, that is the moment your whole trans madness schtick falls apart. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

52 minutes ago, User said:

You are the one pushing this trans madness. Whats wrong? You are unable to support it now?

Don't worry, I knew all along you could not define Woman. I already explained this earlier. The moment you provide any meaningful definition, that is the moment your whole trans madness schtick falls apart. 

 

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?

[User]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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?

 Once again, I said meaningful.

All you did was say that woman meant woman.

That doesn’t define the word at all. 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, User said:

 Once again, I said meaningful.

All you did was say that woman meant woman.

That doesn’t define the word at all. 

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?

[User]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Meaningful is subjective.  My definition is very meaningful.  Sugar is sweet and women are feminine.

No, it is not subjective at all. This is not my first rodeo with folks pushing the trans madness. If you just ask them to define Woman, they will say something silly like a woman is a 2x4 made of pine wood cut to 8 ft and you can find them in Lowes on Isle 4. 

Then they will stomp their feet and declare victory because you see, they defined woman! That is a definition!

So, I throw meaningful on there for folks just like you, who try to say a woman is a woman. 

That means nothing and it adds nothing to this discussion to support your position. 

So, when you feel like actually trying to define woman or maybe... just admitting what you are doing, let me know. 

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, User said:

1. No, it is not subjective at all. This is not my first rodeo with folks pushing the trans madness.

 

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...

[User]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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...

Well, it makes sense that if you are unable to define the term woman, you would think my criticism of your arguments here is insulting you…. 
 

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, User said:

Well, it makes sense that if you are unable to define the term woman, you would think my criticism of your arguments here is insulting you…. 
 

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.

[User]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Um, duh. Of course I have zero respect for your position. You want to assert men can be women and change the definition of woman to something meaningless to do so, impose men into women’s spaces, impose men into their sports taking away their place.

Yes, I’m obviously opposed to all of this and I’m here to disagree and call your positions out for the madness they are. 
 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, User said:

Um, duh. Of course I have zero respect for your position. You want to assert men can be women and change the definition of woman to something meaningless to do so, impose men into women’s spaces, impose men into their sports taking away their place.

Yes, I’m obviously opposed to all of this and I’m here to disagree and call your positions out for the madness they are. 
 

 

 

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.

[User]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Do you even realize you are doing what you are doing?

You just went from respecting your position to respecting you. 

Edit: I would also add, what do you mean by respect your position? It seems like you are conflating agree with respect, and you have no more "respect" for what I am saying here than you are sitting here demanding from me. 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by User

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, User said:

1. Do you even realize you are doing what you are doing?

2. You just went from respecting your position to respecting you. 

3. Edit: I would also add, what do you mean by respect your position? It seems like you are conflating agree with respect, and you have no more "respect" for what I am saying here than you are sitting here demanding from me. 

 

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.

 

[User]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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. 

I think what you are posting here is ridiculous and crazy. I have no role here, but on this discussion board, I have listened to what you post, and I adamantly disagree. 

I am always open to learning stuff and changing my views, but nothing you have posted has come close to doing that, especially when you dodge simple questions and refuse to define what a woman is. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Again, the point of discussion is that you arrive at the scene with the idea that it's a productive engagement, not a competition. 

Is that what you are doing when you assert things as you do? You are not coming here with any more of an open mind than I am. You have a position and you are pushing it. I disagree with it and will challenge it. 

If your notion of a productive engagement is to refuse to define the terms you are using... well... it isn't. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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. 

I have no idea why you are here. It comes across as you want to push your ideas, but not have them challenged or criticized. 

Even now... you sit here trying to say this is an issue over a personal definition of a word when this discussion is about how ALL women are impacted in ALL of society. 

It is not your personal definition of woman. You know this. You know the discussion is about more than that. You know we have been talking about bathroom policy for women in general, for how women in general are impacted in their spaces, sports, locker rooms... so why? Why do you do this? 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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. 

So, you don't think you are right? Then why are you pushing your position here then and disagreeing with me?

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, User said:

1. ... refuse to define what a woman is. 

2. You are not coming here with any more of an open mind than I am.  

3. ... refuse to define the terms you are using... well... it isn't. 

4. ... not have them challenged or criticized. 

Even now... you sit here trying to say this is an issue over a personal definition of a word when this discussion is about how ALL women are impacted in ALL of society. 

5. It is not your personal definition of woman. You know this.

6. You know the discussion is about more than that. You know we have been talking about bathroom policy for women in general, for how women in general are impacted in their spaces, sports, locker rooms... so why? Why do you do this? 

7. So, you don't think you are right? Then why are you pushing your position here then and disagreeing with me?

 

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? 

 

 

[User]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Incorrect.

You never defined it beyond saying a woman is a woman. Meaningless and adds nothing to the discussion, or to further your point, or to discount mine. 

This is the exact game I said people like you who push the trans madness play. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

I did not say you said you were more open-minded. I think my position is better than yours, as it is based on reality and protecting women from this madness. 

Once again, you can't differentiate between criticism of what you say and yourself. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Incorrect.

You never defined it beyond saying a woman is a woman. Meaningless and adds nothing to the discussion, or to further your point, or to discount mine. 

This is the exact game I said people like you who push the trans madness play. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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. 

Typing some random words and hitting reply does not satisfy my request. Once again, you have completely avoided actually responding to the point I made. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

So, if you are saying yes you know it was not just your personal definition... why say that it was?

We never agreed, you gave a wishy washy non-commital answer that, when I asked for specifics, devolved into you saying if you labeled the locker room for being trans friendly... to which I pointed out it is no longer a women's locker room. Then you started this whole game of trying muddy the waters with the definition of woman. 

So, if you think a woman is just a woman, then how can you claim you are opposed to a "woman" (really a dude) undressing in front of women (actual women)?
 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Explain how this actually works. We have women spaces. You refuse to define the word, so in a woman's locker room... what does consent look like?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Nope, just calling you out for what you are doing here. And you once again avoid actually responding to what you did. This is the typical game played, anything to avoid actually having to define what a woman is. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not very engaging. 

You keep harping on this as if the games you are playing are supposed to be engaging? They are not. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

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 am not the one making silly comments about "its not a matter of right and wrong"

That was you. Of course I am pushing my position. What a stupid question to ask me. 

Here you go again... making it about yourself. No, I think my positions are better than yours. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm just trying to find out how you arrive at your conclusions. We're not going to agree, you know that right? 

You are just jerking me around, but I will just keep putting the facts back at you. 

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, User said:

1. .. you gave a wishy washy non-commital answer that, when I asked for specifics, devolved into you saying if you labeled the locker room for being trans friendly... to which I pointed out it is no longer a women's locker room. Then you started this whole game of trying muddy the waters with the definition of woman. 

2. So, if you think a woman is just a woman, then how can you claim you are opposed to a "woman" (really a dude) undressing in front of women (actual women)?
 

 

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.

 

 

[User]

49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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"...

Yet again, another response not actually addressing the point. "Has some right" was not the discussion. 

To that point, why are you using terms like "trans woman" now? You said women were women. Why do you need to clarify?

The only person engaged in word play right now is you. 

I never said trans folks can't use any washroom, but if the are pretending to be something they are not, then they are responsible for any ruckus they cause for looking like someone who should not be in certain places. 

I don't have to figure out how to bend society to every whim of someone's fetish or delusion. 

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

You defined a woman as a woman. Then you go on to say "Trans women are women"

So... now you claim trans women are not exactly the same as women? Again, if you would define the term woman and stop using it to refer to dudes who think they are women, we wouldn't have this problem. 

You are the one engaged in this word play, all so you can push your support of trans madness. 

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, User said:

1. ...if the are pretending to be something they are not, then they are responsible for any ruckus they cause for looking like someone who should not be in certain places. 

2. ... now you claim trans women are not exactly the same as women?

3. Again, if you would define the term woman and stop using it to refer to dudes who think they are women, we wouldn't have this problem. 

4. You are the one engaged in this word play, all so you can push your support of trans madness. 

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...

 

[User]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 😂 Meaning what? You can legally beat them up? Come on....

Did you have a question for me or are you satisfied answering your own question with a rhetorical question?

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

Why do you keep using the term trans if trans women are women?

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I did to find it but you want me to use your definition. Not going to do that. 

It is not my definition. It is the definition. And so far, you can't even offer one of your own. 

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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. 

No conspiracy. You guys actually exist, you are here now pushing the trans madness. 

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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...

You are the one pushing this garbage. When you are ready to stop, go for it. 

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, User said:

1. Did you have a question for me or are you satisfied answering your own question with a rhetorical question?

2. Why do you keep using the term trans if trans women are women?

3. It is not my definition. It is the definition. And so far, you can't even offer one of your own. 

4. No conspiracy. You guys actually exist, you are here now pushing the trans madness. 

5. You are the one pushing this garbage. When you are ready to stop, go for it. 

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.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. What would be the actual policy implementation of your "it's on them" approach?

There is none. I have been quite clear on this:

"I don't have to figure out how to bend society to every whim of someone's fetish or delusion."

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I think that I answered that.  They're women but they're different.

That is not an answer as to why you keep saying trans if they are just women. 

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. The definition of trans women is "dudes" who think they're women.  No, that's something you wrote.

What does this have to do with your inability to define woman?

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Conspiracies exist.  And you think I'm part of one.  Ok then.

Nope, not what I said. 

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. Ok.  Let's stop.

You never really started.