Are you a man or a woman?

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

You're right, but as you say, this is when we're talking about biology. There are many definitions of gender. Some conform to what we might call the traditional definition. Here's an example:

**

• noun Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions; sex.

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/gender , The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition

Others don't:

**

• noun The mental analogue of sex: one's maleness (masculinity) or femaleness (femininity). (Also called gender identity.)

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/gender , Wiktonary, Creative Commons

If there's no recognized definition then the word is by definition meaningless. In which case it shouldn't be considered when talking about people's rights or anything legal. 

 

Quote

First of all, I think we should get into what is meant by agenda here. If your meaning is "a motive or set of goals", sure. I think people do things to make their lives better, so that could certainly fit.

Motives And set of goals works just fine for the purposes of this conversation. But people have a lot more motivations than just what makes their lives better unfortunately.

Quote

Secondly, people have done more than just try to alter the meanings of words, they've done it time and again since words were first created.

The vast majority of words have a set meeting that is recognized within their era. Sometimes people play games with the words, and people often alter words to fit it an agenda or for propaganda or marketing purposes. But in most cases if our words may need changes it changes over time gradually and the changes universally accepted. We all agree that these days a f@ggot is not a stick of wood. But that didn't happen overnight and essentially once the modern term was established the older term stopped being used. 

We all know what sex and gender is. If your argument is that gender is so malleable a term that it means something different to anyone then it's a pointless and meaningless term and isn't relevant to the discussion and we should just stick with sex exclusively. 

Quote

Finally, I'd say that it's gone beyond simply being colloqualisms, considering the fact that Wikipedia has no biological component for gender and the Oxford dictionary now includes the term cisgender:

 

 

So's fagot. 

Quote

Based on the fact that more and more youth are identifying as transgender or gender fluid, I think this is a trend that will only increase over time.

Considering it's a perjorative i think then that what you're saying is that straight men and women should organize to stick up for their rigths and fight back against those who would repress them. 

You seem determined to make it an us vs them thing and perhaps that's inevitable as you predict. If we're going to be forced to pick sides that seems unfortunate but sometimes culture goes that way.  We'll have to focus on more farther right of center gov'ts and look to end the conflict in our favour. 

I would much rather have preferred peaceful coexistence but it sounds like you're saying that's not possible. 

[Scott75]

54 minutes ago, robosmith said:

See 9 Months That Made You

I got a 404 (page could not be found). I think I found it elsewhere though:

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-nine-months-that-made-you/

[Nationalist]

9 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

This is no longer just about transgender people, if indeed it ever was. It's also about the people who care about them. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the term to denote someone who identifies as the sex they were assigned at birth is cisgender. For someone who identifies as the sex they weren't assigned at birth, it's transgender. It's even made it into some dictionaries according to Wikipedia. Here's the introduction they've made for the term:

**

The word cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) describes a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth, i.e., someone who is not transgender.^[1][2][3] The prefix cis- is Latin and means on this side of. The term cisgender was coined in 1994 as an antonym to transgender, and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender.^[4][5] The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique.

Related concepts are cisnormativity (the presumption that cisgender identity is preferred or normal) and cissexism (bias or prejudice favoring cisgender people).

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

From your "definition"...

"The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique."

And always will be.

My own birth certificate clearly says,

"Gender: Male"

[Scott75]

On 11/2/2024 at 6:48 AM, Nationalist said:

On 11/1/2024 at 9:57 PM, phoenyx75 said:

I think the most important issue is the over emphasis on following gender norms. I suspect that if people could be more fluid in their social gender expression they would feel less of a need to change their physical appearance through hormones and surgery.

More fluid? You're thinking people should just accept the the warping of perhaps the most important truth of life.

Could you define what you mean by "the most important truth of life"?

On 11/2/2024 at 6:48 AM, Nationalist said:

And then you think it should be OK to introduce and press this warped idea on kids. That a grown man can claim to be a woman and compete in women's sport. That idea is just not gonna fly.

I have already voiced concerns about biological men competing in women's sports. Some olympic sports now allow it to some extent, but there are limits:

https://www.newsweek.com/rules-transgender-olympic-athletes-explained-1920847

I've never been a big fan of competitive sports to begin with, so this is mostly below my radar.

On 11/2/2024 at 6:48 AM, Nationalist said:

If some adults wanna be fluid...they can LARP as whatever they like. But do not bring gender-bending to kids or to sport...

You seem to think that this is something that adults are 'bringing' to kids. I think it's something that kids are discovering about themselves and I suspect that a great deal more adults are suppressing it rather than encouraging it. Ironically, I think it's the conservative approach to a person's gender identity/fluidity that is persuading some trans people to get surgery. I suspect that being more accepting of gender identity and fluidity could lead to -less- surgeries, which I think would probably be for the best.

On 11/2/2024 at 6:48 AM, Nationalist said:

and do not impose laws such as in England or Canada, which force people to call men...women.

I'd need to see the specific laws in question, but I think I get the point to some extent. It's like it's not lawful to call a black person the N word. Trans people are clearly different than cisgender people (biological people if you prefer). I think that allowing them to be included in the gender they identify with makes the most sense. As mentioned previously, if it becomes important to know the sex a person was assigned at birth, you can simply add cis or trans before terms like male and female.

On 11/2/2024 at 6:48 AM, Nationalist said:

This is a childish idea and a battle that never should have come to pass.

I think the childishness is in this insistence that old definitions of male and female can't change. They already have for a substantial amount of people, and I think the trend is clearly that this only become more prevalent in the future. Not only has this battle come to pass, but I think it's clear who will win it. Look to the youth. They're the ones who will inherit the earth.

[Scott75]

On 11/2/2024 at 7:06 AM, Deluge said:

On 11/1/2024 at 10:09 PM, phoenyx75 said:

Could you elaborate on what you think I'm wrong -about-? I'm guessing you tried to explain it by referring to you having edited a left leaning page, but I don't see the connection. 

You said wikipedia is uneditable - at least some of it is uneditable. Point out the pages that are uneditable. 

I never said that any Wikipedia page was uneditable. I said:

**

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

**

Source:

https://repolitics.com/forums/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=54465&content_commentid=1762375

[Scott75]

23 hours ago, Deluge said:

  

On 11/1/2024 at 10:02 PM, phoenyx75 said:

It's certainly indicative of -something-. As to what it's indicative of, I'm not sure. I suspect more than one factor is involved. I suspect that it may be partally because of certain chemicals:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7440-gender-bending-chemicals-found-to-feminise-boys/

https://loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00001&segmentID=7

I also suspect that it's partly because it's more acceptable to be trans. I don't necessarily think that's always a good thing. As I've said in the past, I think that if people were more accepting of people bending their social gender expression, there would be less of a perceived need to change one's physical appearance through hormones and surgery.

No, it's indicative of the lgbt agenda. You don't see it because you are steeped in the lgbt agenda, but we see it, and that's why we are calling it out.

What exactly do you believe constitutes the "lgbt agenda"? Secondly, the only relatively well known person who I've seen bring up the effects of chemicals in relation to people's gender identity is Alex Jones, who is Wikipedia describes as being on the far right.

On 11/2/2024 at 7:19 AM, Deluge said:

Your idea of acceptance means give in to whatever the left-wing demands. In this case it's the transgender arm of the left-wing.

No, my idea of acceptance entails accepting people for who they are, not for who some conservatives would like them to be. Ironically, I think this could lead to -less- hormone therapies and surgeries, because if people are more comfortable with who they already are, they would feel less of a need to try to change their appearance.

 

On 11/2/2024 at 7:19 AM, Deluge said:

But to be quite honest, we are not interested in ANYTHING that the left has to say. We're not interested because the left takes a mile when given an inch. That's why we stand firm with pretty much everything they want. 

Anyone can speak against vague abstractions such as "the left", but it won't us anywhere productive. To get productive results, we need to talk about specifics.

 

On 11/2/2024 at 7:19 AM, Deluge said:

Again, dress like a woman, go out on the town, have fun - but when it's time to p*ss, you're going to the men's room to p*ss.

Again, this depends on the place. Several laws have already been instituted allowing trans women to use the washroom of the gender they identify with. 

On 11/2/2024 at 7:19 AM, Deluge said:

As far as children go, it's best to just stay away froom them. 

Again, I strongly disagree, not least of which is because some trans people have children of their own. What's needed is more dialogue to try to find a way that everyone's concerns are heard and ultimately, find an approach that integrates trans people, whether or not they have taking hormones or surgery. I suspect that most people would be better off without hormone therapies and surgeries, but for that, they have to be comfortable in the bodies they already have. And that, I strongly suspect, will only come once societies are more comfortable with the fact that a lot of people don't want to comform to certain gender stereotypes.

[Scott75]

On 11/2/2024 at 7:28 AM, Deluge said:

 

On 11/1/2024 at 9:53 PM, phoenyx75 said:

On 10/31/2024 at 7:31 AM, Deluge said:

This is why you never use the word "gender" to define someone's sexuality - it's too ambiguous. 

The correct way to function in society is by a person's sex. 

I certainly agree that if you want to know someone's biological gender, asking for their gender may not get you that information.

I don't care to know someone's gender because I'm not confused or deliberately trying to redefine society. It's all rather clear over here. 

I was simply agreeing with you that using the word gender has become too ambiguous and that it's better to define a person's biological gender by asking for a person's sex, or, even clearer, their "sex assigned at birth".

  

On 11/2/2024 at 7:28 AM, Deluge said:

On 11/1/2024 at 9:53 PM, phoenyx75 said:

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "The correct way to function in society is by a person's sex"?

It means we don't make accomadations for gendermandering. We go by biological sex and that's it.  

That doesn't really explain much. As I've said elsewhere, I think that for many trans people who are considering things like hormone therapy and surgery, the -reason- they think this may be their best option is because they don't feel accepted by society the way they currently appear. Which to me strongly suggests that society needs to be more accepting of people who stretch gender norms.

 

[Nationalist]

35 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

Could you define what you mean by "the most important truth of life"?

I have already voiced concerns about biological men competing in women's sports. Some olympic sports now allow it to some extent, but there are limits:

https://www.newsweek.com/rules-transgender-olympic-athletes-explained-1920847

I've never been a big fan of competitive sports to begin with, so this is mostly below my radar.

You seem to think that this is something that adults are 'bringing' to kids. I think it's something that kids are discovering about themselves and I suspect that a great deal more adults are suppressing it rather than encouraging it. Ironically, I think it's the conservative approach to a person's gender identity/fluidity that is persuading some trans people to get surgery. I suspect that being more accepting of gender identity and fluidity could lead to -less- surgeries, which I think would probably be for the best.

I'd need to see the specific laws in question, but I think I get the point to some extent. It's like it's not lawful to call a black person the N word. Trans people are clearly different than cisgender people (biological people if you prefer). I think that allowing them to be included in the gender they identify with makes the most sense. As mentioned previously, if it becomes important to know the sex a person was assigned at birth, you can simply add cis or trans before terms like male and female.

I think the childishness is in this insistence that old definitions of male and female can't change. They already have for a substantial amount of people, and I think the trend is clearly that this only become more prevalent in the future. Not only has this battle come to pass, but I think it's clear who will win it. Look to the youth. They're the ones who will inherit the earth.

The most important truth of life is that it takes a woman and a man to procreate. That you don't understand that is concerning. 

Adults are free to believe they are whatever they want. Hell check this blithering id1ot out.

where does this insanity stop?

Just leave kids out of this bullshit.

 

Edited November 3, 2024 by Nationalist

[Scott75]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

On 11/2/2024 at 2:38 AM, phoenyx75 said:

I think that perhaps a good way to look at this is whether people should have the right to use the N word for blacks or the F word for gay people. This reminds me of a joke told by Dave Chappelle. I'll let him tell it:

In summation, I think using the N word for blacks, the F word for gays and calling trans men women and trans women men in comedy can work if done right, but in other contexts, not so much. 

Funny enough I think that joke highlights an underlying issue with your example.

Calling a gay person a f@ggot,  you are specifically referring to them in a derogatory term. It's not an accurate term, it's a term that is meant specifically to be derogatory. It's like calling someone a b*tch, you're not ACTUALLY saying they're a female dog.  You're deliberately being derogatory and COMPARING them to one in YOUR estimation. 

The same is true for n*gger.  As the comet points out he's not actually a n*gger, as he understands the word.  It's not an accurate or descriptive term, it's a pejorative that is specifically designed to demean or denigrate someone.

We agree up to this point.

  

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But girl or boy or man or woman is not derogatory at all. It is in fact an accurate descriptor. It is truthful and honest. Which is why the vast majority of people do not mind being referred to that way in the slightest.

The insult comes when you deliberately and with intent claim that a person is something other than what they are in order to be demeaning. For example if you're a male and I call you a man you're not going to be offended, but if I call you a girly man or suggest that you're a woman you might be.

So misgendering someone sort of feels like that because they feel they are one thing and you are claiming that they are something else. But in reality you are being accurate. If they are a woman and you call them a woman even if they identify as a man you have made a true statement. This is completely different than calling someone a f@g or n*gger. 

It actually all depends on how we define various terms. For a trans woman to be called a man can certainly offend -them-. Think about all of the effort some of them have put into looking like a woman. Similarly, why do you think that it offends cisgender men a girly man, or a cisgender woman a manly woman? I think there is something profoundly wrong with our societies that we are offended of being compared to the opposite gender, even though most of us are -attracted- to the opposite gender. I think that the trans community is a strong reaction against gender stereotypes and I think that allowing anyone to identify as the gender they choose should be allowed, just as long as we have terms that can still identify people by their biological gender when this becomes important.

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And I guess that's where I come back to the idea that it should never be punishable to speak the truth. It is not true that every black person is a n*gger, but it is true that every woman is a woman even if they identify as a man. 

I'm reminded of a line from Obi-Wan Kenobi, explaining to Luke Skywalker how his telling him that Darth Vader had killed his father was true, from a certain point of view:

**

“Your father... was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be the Jedi Anakin Skywalker and "became" the Sith Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.” 

**

What is true all depends on your point of view, which certainly includes on how words are defined in the various groups we interact with. Here's a suggestion: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". It's akin to how comedians are given far more leeway to say things then people in a work setting.

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

On 11/2/2024 at 2:38 AM, phoenyx75 said:

You make a lot of good points. I also agree that common decency and mutual respect are very important. I think that when those are applied well, the courts can be avoided, which I think works out best for everyone involved.

Sure, but I don't think that the court should have any right to have a say in it at all in the first place. Unless someone is able to demonstrate that the offending person is being offending maliciously and has a position of authority over the person involved I don't think there should be any grounds for legal action

Well, clearly some judges disagree and I think I tend to agree with said judges. As I've said previously, it all depends on who you're interacting with. Black people who are good friends can sometimes call each other the N word and be fine with it. By contrast, a white person calling a black person said word is almost always frowned upon. They're social conventions that we've learned to live with. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that many trans people want to be identified with the gender they identify with. I don't see why we can't accomodate them. As I said, if one needs to know a person's biological identity, there are words to find that out, such as whether someone is cisgender or transgender.

[Scott75]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

On 11/2/2024 at 3:10 AM, phoenyx75 said:

**

The word cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) describes a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth, i.e., someone who is not transgender.^[1][2][3]

The prefix cis- is Latin and means on this side of. The term cisgender was coined in 1994 as an antonym to transgender, and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender.^[4][5] The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique.

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

if you are trying to say that the word cis or cisgender has NOT become a Pejorative that I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you dishonest right here.

It is used in a demeaning and dismissive way. You might as well argue that n*gger just comes from the word 'negro' so it's perfectly fine.  Or that "f@ggot" just means a short stick.

The term is used pejoratively and often in connection with racist comments.   The term "cis white male" for example is used to basically call all hetero white males subhumans who should be repressed at all costs as they are the source of all evils in the universe. 

Some people use "white person" in a pejorative way. Others don't. The bottom line is that it's an accurate way to describe a person's gender identity as well as their biological gender at the same time. Other terms can be used, ofcourse, such as "biological male", but that only describes their biological gender. One could ofcourse say "non trans male" if one really doesn't like the term "cis".

Edited November 3, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

13 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

You're right, but as you say, this is when we're talking about biology. There are many definitions of gender. Some conform to what we might call the traditional definition. Here's an example:

**

• noun Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions; sex.

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/gender , The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition

Others don't:

**

• noun The mental analogue of sex: one's maleness (masculinity) or femaleness (femininity). (Also called gender identity.)

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/gender , Wiktonary, Creative Commons

If there's no recognized definition then the word is by definition meaningless. In which case it shouldn't be considered when talking about people's rights or anything legal. 

On the contrary, there are -multiple- recognized definitions. However, I think we can agree that when it comes to legal terms, there should be only one. I think it's clear that judges are making laws that are codifying what gender means legally and I think that's a good thing.

[Scott75]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

13 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/1/2024 at 8:44 PM, CdnFox said:

What you mean to say perhaps is that many people try to alter the meaning of the word to suit an agenda. But unless the phrase is universally accepted then the meeting hasn't changed, it's just a colloquialism amongst the specific group or region.

First of all, I think we should get into what is meant by agenda here. If your meaning is "a motive or set of goals", sure. I think people do things to make their lives better, so that could certainly fit.

Motives And set of goals works just fine for the purposes of this conversation. But people have a lot more motivations than just what makes their lives better unfortunately.

You'd need to get into specific examples in order to properly discuss this theme.

[Scott75]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

13 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Secondly, people have done more than just try to alter the meanings of words, they've done it time and again since words were first created.

The vast majority of words have a set meeting that is recognized within their era.

Yes, within their era or time. The time's are always changing though.

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sometimes people play games with the words, and people often alter words to fit it an agenda or for propaganda or marketing purposes. But in most cases if our words may need changes it changes over time gradually and the changes universally accepted.

I haven't done a study on words and how often their meanings are changed/modified/expanded. But I think it's eminently clear that terms denoting a person's gender have been changing quite a bit for a good number of people recently. It's also clear that not everyone is accepting of these changes. But elder people not liking the way words are being modified is highly a new concept. I remember my grandfather on my father's side not liking some of the new mexican slang that I was using. But ultimately, older generations pass away and it's the new generations that take the wheel.

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

We all agree that these days a f@ggot is not a stick of wood. But that didn't happen overnight and essentially once the modern term was established the older term stopped being used.

Yes, given enough time, the meanings of many words change.

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

We all know what sex and gender is. If your argument is that gender is so malleable a term that it means something different to anyone then it's a pointless and meaningless term and isn't relevant to the discussion and we should just stick with sex exclusively.

I agree with you there. But it's not so malleable. Recently, there's been a type of battle between what we can call the old definition, that gender is tied to biology, and the new one that it is a social construct, as Wikipedia puts it. For now, both of these definitions exist and thus, it can be hard to know what a person means when they say they are male or female, because it depends on how they're defining their gender. That's why using terms like cis or biological are important if one wants to establish one's biological gender.

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

13 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Finally, I'd say that it's gone beyond simply being colloqualisms, considering the fact that Wikipedia has no biological component for gender and the Oxford dictionary now includes the term cisgender:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150814051905/http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/june-2015-update/new-words-notes-june-2015/

So's fagot.

Fair enough. But while I think we can agree that the amount of people calling a bundle of twigs fagot is dwindling, the number of people who are using the term cisgender is increasing. 

[Scott75]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

13 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Based on the fact that more and more youth are identifying as transgender or gender fluid, I think this is a trend that will only increase over time.

Considering it's a perjorative i think then that what you're saying is that straight men and women should organize to stick up for their rigths and fight back against those who would repress them. 

I -think- you're saying that cis is a pejorative. As I've said previously, it depends on who's saying it. I think that for the most part, cis is not used pejoratively. Most importantly, calling someone a cisgender or a transgender male/female makes both their biological gender and the gender they identify with clear. In a time where the meaning of gender has become a battlefield, I think it's nice to have a term that doesn't need to take sides on this issue. And if you like the term cis, you can replace it with biological- it's just longer. I tend to avoid long words when shorter ones will do.

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You seem determined to make it an us vs them thing and perhaps that's inevitable as you predict. If we're going to be forced to pick sides that seems unfortunate but sometimes culture goes that way.  We'll have to focus on more farther right of center gov'ts and look to end the conflict in our favour. 

I would much rather have preferred peaceful coexistence but it sounds like you're saying that's not possible. 

On the contrary, I think it's quite possible. But for peaceful coexistence to occur, I think both sides are going to have to examine why both sides feel threatened. I think the best way to do that is through conversations like the one we're having now.

[Scott75]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Could you define what you mean by "the most important truth of life"?

I have already voiced concerns about biological men competing in women's sports. Some olympic sports now allow it to some extent, but there are limits:

https://www.newsweek.com/rules-transgender-olympic-athletes-explained-1920847

I've never been a big fan of competitive sports to begin with, so this is mostly below my radar.

You seem to think that this is something that adults are 'bringing' to kids. I think it's something that kids are discovering about themselves and I suspect that a great deal more adults are suppressing it rather than encouraging it. Ironically, I think it's the conservative approach to a person's gender identity/fluidity that is persuading some trans people to get surgery. I suspect that being more accepting of gender identity and fluidity could lead to -less- surgeries, which I think would probably be for the best.

I'd need to see the specific laws in question, but I think I get the point to some extent. It's like it's not lawful to call a black person the N word. Trans people are clearly different than cisgender people (biological people if you prefer). I think that allowing them to be included in the gender they identify with makes the most sense. As mentioned previously, if it becomes important to know the sex a person was assigned at birth, you can simply add cis or trans before terms like male and female.

I think the childishness is in this insistence that old definitions of male and female can't change. They already have for a substantial amount of people, and I think the trend is clearly that this only become more prevalent in the future. Not only has this battle come to pass, but I think it's clear who will win it. Look to the youth. They're the ones who will inherit the earth.

The most important truth of life is that it takes a woman and a man to procreate. That you don't understand that is concerning. 

I understand what you're saying, because I understand how you're defining a man and a woman. One could also say that it takes a cisgender woman and a cisgender man to procreate. Nothing would change other than adding the cis part, which clarifies what type of man and woman are being referred to.

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Adults are free to believe they are whatever they want. Hell check this blithering id1ot out.

I saw the beginning of the clip, I think that was enough. Back when I still had a driver's license, I carried it with me whenever I was driving so that if I was stopped by a police officer, I could show it to them if necessary. While I've heard some claims to the contrary, I was raised to believe that if a cop stops you, that's the thing to do, so I did it on the rare occassions that I was pulled over. This man apparently didn't think it was necessary, at least at first, which told me what I think I needed to know about that video.

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Just leave kids out of this bullshit.

All I can say here is that your statement is so vague that it's impossible to truly respond to it. It all depends on what you mean by "bull****".

[Scott75]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

14 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

This is no longer just about transgender people, if indeed it ever was. It's also about the people who care about them. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the term to denote someone who identifies as the sex they were assigned at birth is cisgender. For someone who identifies as the sex they weren't assigned at birth, it's transgender. It's even made it into some dictionaries according to Wikipedia. Here's the introduction they've made for the term:

**

The word cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) describes a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth, i.e., someone who is not transgender.^[1][2][3] The prefix cis- is Latin and means on this side of. The term cisgender was coined in 1994 as an antonym to transgender, and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender.^[4][5] The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique.

Related concepts are cisnormativity (the presumption that cisgender identity is preferred or normal) and cissexism (bias or prejudice favoring cisgender people).

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

From your "definition"...

"The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique."

And always will be.

Always is a very long time. I doubt either you or I will be around at that point, at least as the people we identify ourselves to be today. But we can certainly agree that words preceded by cis are controversial today.

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

My own birth certificate clearly says,

"Gender: Male"

So does mine. Since we're both cisgender males (or biological males if you prefer), we're both happy about that too. The problem comes if you're a transgender male. Probably not so much because of the birth certificate but because of how one is perceived by others.

[Nationalist]

11 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

I understand what you're saying, because I understand how you're defining a man and a woman. One could also say that it takes a cisgender woman and a cisgender man to procreate. Nothing would change other than adding the cis part, which clarifies what type of man and woman are being referred to.

I saw the beginning of the clip, I think that was enough. Back when I still had a driver's license, I carried it with me whenever I was driving so that if I was stopped by a police officer, I could show it to them if necessary. While I've heard some claims to the contrary, I was raised to believe that if a cop stops you, that's the thing to do, so I did it on the rare occassions that I was pulled over. This man apparently didn't think it was necessary, at least at first, which told me what I think I needed to know about that video.

All I can say here is that your statement is so vague that it's impossible to truly respond to it. It all depends on what you mean by "bull****".

Incredible...

No you do not need to add "cis". Any woman's egg and any man's sperm can procreate. Assuming fertility is active. This "cis" thing is just sissy mumbo jumbo.

My statement is clear. Leave kids alone. Don't even suggest hormones or any "gender affirming" bullshit. Just let them be kids for Gawd's sake! What's going on in some places...like Tampon Timmy's state...is inhumane a disgusting. 

[Nationalist]

49 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

Always is a very long time. I doubt either you or I will be around at that point, at least as the people we identify ourselves to be today. But we can certainly agree that words preceded by cis are controversial today.

So does mine. Since we're both cisgender males (or biological males if you prefer), we're both happy about that too. The problem comes if you're a transgender male. Probably not so much because of the birth certificate but because of how one is perceived by others.

This is nonsense. 

Any person who isn't sure of themselves needs to know they are OK. Self affirming care. Not to feed that person's insecurities by poisoning them and butchering them.

Edited November 3, 2024 by Nationalist

[User]

42 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

So does mine. Since we're both cisgender males (or biological males if you prefer),

No, just males. 

The fact that you have to invent new words or add modifiers to existing words only further proves how meaningless your attempts to redefine definitions of male and female really are. 

So, lets review. You want to change what male and female means for 99% plus of the population, so that you can placate the delusions of the less than 1% just to turn around and have to create a new word for the 99%. 

So... what was the point of saying a transwoman is a female if you are just going to turn around and call all the real females biological or cisgender? Now that transwoman isn't fitting in anymore. What if that transwoman now wants to identify as a biological female?

 

 

[User]

On 11/1/2024 at 7:57 PM, phoenyx75 said:

You keep on seeming to think that this is somehow about me.

No, it is about your bad arguments. 

On 11/1/2024 at 7:57 PM, phoenyx75 said:

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.

Because I believe in truth and reality, I will not succumb to someone else's delusion and sacrifice my own integrity by supporting this madness. 

On 11/1/2024 at 11:15 PM, phoenyx75 said:

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

No, you are not interested in "we" at all here. You want to cram this down "we" throats when "we" disagree. 

 

On 11/2/2024 at 3:52 AM, phoenyx75 said:

There is now a sizeable group of people who define male and female as people who identify as such. 

Doesn't make it right, accurate, or make any sense. 

[User]

On 11/2/2024 at 3:57 AM, phoenyx75 said:

Male: Someone who socially identifies as male.

Female: Someone who socially identifies as female.

So, you just defined a word... using the word. 

Like I said, what you are doing here is nonsensical gibberish. 

On 11/2/2024 at 4:03 AM, phoenyx75 said:

A term that is broad does not mean that it is meaningless.

This is a strawman argument, as my argument was never built around nor did it mention that your attempts to change the meaning of these words nonsensically were too broad. 

 

[User]

On 11/2/2024 at 4:10 AM, phoenyx75 said:

Again, the issue is how we define terms like male and female. A person who defines male and female as people who identify as such isn't "pretending" that a trans male is male, they are included in their definition of the term.

Yes, they are literally pretending to be something they are not. The fact that you want to let them by labeling them as such doesn't change that. You are making a circular argument, trying to say that if we change the term to the meaningless nonsense you want, then they are not pretending. 

 

[User]

15 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

If one needs to know a person's sex assigned at birth, one can simply add cis or trans to male/female/man/woman etc.

Sex is not assigned. Sex is identified based on someones sexual organs and can be further confirmed by their genetics. 

So... you continue to let the cat out of the bag here. You don't want just to redefine terms, you are here pushing the underlying madness beyond terms, as you now claim sex is assigned. 

 

15 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

My point was that Wikipedia didn't mention that gender had a biological component.

So, why do we need to add that in order to identify someone like you want to do?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

We agree up to this point.

Always nice to start off on what we can agree on  

 

Quote

  It actually all depends on how we define various terms. For a trans woman to be called a man can certainly offend -them-. Think about all of the effort some of them have put into looking like a woman. Similarly, why do you think that it offends cisgender men a girly man, or a cisgender woman a manly woman?

It's not a question of whether or not it offends them. The point is it's the truth. It's not a term that is intended to be offensive or that is offensive and common use such as the n word. It is a statement of fact and that differentiates it.

A person may or may not be offended by the truth. There are certainly no end of examples of people being offended by what is true, or at least becoming very angry about it. But that doesn't stop it from being true.

If somebody makes a true statement and they're not doing it in a malicious or vindictive fashion then whether it's offensive or not to the other person they should not be penalized for it.  

If someone asks me if they're fat and I look at them and I say "Yes, you are objectively overweight by a significant amount. I would guess that you would need to lose approximately 50 lb to be at your ideal body weight" , Then even if they are offended by that or hurt by that or it makes them sad all I've done is state a simple truth without malice. It doesn't matter how much they've tried to lose weight, it doesn't matter how hard it is for them to lose weight or how much it upsets them to be overweight.

2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

agree with you there. But it's not so malleable.

But you need to make up your mind, because you're claiming it is. Your flip-flopping back and forth on this. Either there is a common definition that we could all get behind or there isn't and then it shouldn't be considered as part of the discussion because terms that can't be just fine have no place in a discussion about people's rights.

If anyone can define it however they like then it has no meaning in terms that have no meaning don't belong in serious debate. Sentences make no sense unless the words in them have agreed upon meaning.  I know that's very gender of me, but that's just how I gender because I'm so genderific!  

2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Fair enough. But while I think we can agree that the amount of people calling a bundle of twigs fagot is dwindling, the number of people who are using the term cisgender is increasing. 

Yes, just as the number of people who called gays f@ggots increased for a long time. 

But that wasn't a good thing. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Some people use "white person" in a pejorative way. Others don't. The bottom line is that it's an accurate way to describe a person's gender identity as well as their biological gender at the same time.

It's not accurate. It's a made-up phrase that someone felt was appropriate. But the correct term for a male who is of a traditional sexual orientation is heterosexual.

Your argument is no different than those who try and claim that n***** is inaccurate description of black people. It is not.

Here's a few general rules. If a group never uses that term to refer to itself it's probably pejorative. If the people who actually use the term are using it in a negative and demeaning way it's probably pejorative. If it was created by a group that perceives its own interests to be in conflict with the group that they're referring to it's probably pejorative.

Now you came on here claiming that while you can understand why somebody might call a biological female a female instead of a male you think that the appropriate and polite and reasonable thing to do is to refer to them as their gender of their choice.

Yet now you're insisting that the appropriate thing to do is to be insulting to people with a term that has no history and isn't accurate because you like it.

Sir, your hypocrisy is showing