Are you a man or a woman?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

Or... in your case, you just pretend it isn't happening. 

This is projection. You certainly arrive in these discussions with just as much of your views and conclusions already made as you dismiss anyone and everyone who is even concerned about this. 

 

And isn't this often the case.  Swoops in, disparages everyone else's opinion, rushes off without defending his own position (and often even without offering it). 

How many billions of times have we proven that it does happen in Canada and the US. Even the other lunatics who believe like Michael come back and say well it doesn't happen often after such proofs, they don't continue to pretend it never happens at all.

Of his posts about a third are simply post-stating we shouldn't be talking about whatever we're talking about, and about another third are trying to convince other people not to listen to anyone he disagrees with. The remaining third are just generally disparaging as a rule. He never starts a thread, he never initiates a conversation, and rarely begins with anything that's in any way shape or form contributing to the discussion. Yet he constantly attempts to call other people out saying that they don't want discussions and they're not interested in rational conversation

It's just a bad example of a human.

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's notable that your comments aren't grounded in real politics, or achievable policy changes.

It's just how you feel about things.

It's fine, but there's not much for me to add, other than "ok, then...".

That kind of thinking is exactly why RINO's fail. 

[NAME REMOVED]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And isn't this often the case.  Swoops in, disparages everyone else's opinion, rushes off without defending his own position (and often even without offering it). 

How many billions of times have we proven that it does happen in Canada and the US. Even the other lunatics who believe like Michael come back and say well it doesn't happen often after such proofs, they don't continue to pretend it never happens at all.

Of his posts about a third are simply post-stating we shouldn't be talking about whatever we're talking about, and about another third are trying to convince other people not to listen to anyone he disagrees with. The remaining third are just generally disparaging as a rule. He never starts a thread, he never initiates a conversation, and rarely begins with anything that's in any way shape or form contributing to the discussion. Yet he constantly attempts to call other people out saying that they don't want discussions and they're not interested in rational conversation

It's just a bad example of a human.

@CdnFox does not agree with @Michael Hardner. Rather than refute his argument, CdnFox attacks Michael as a person, and anyone who agrees with him. 

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

@CdnFox does not agree with @Michael Hardner. Rather than refute his argument, CdnFox attacks Michael as a person, and anyone who agrees with him. 

@Michael Hardner did not make an argument for me to refute   That's the problem. 

and is a pretty common Problem with him, as I noted. He never really makes an argument.

[Scott75]

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

@CdnFox does not agree with @Michael Hardner. Rather than refute his argument, CdnFox attacks Michael as a person, and anyone who agrees with him. 

Yeah, CdnFox really goes for character assassination a lot. I think he's currently the -only- poster here where I've come to the decision that some of his posts addressed to me really aren't worth responding to. 

Edited December 26, 2024 by Scott75

[Scott75]

On 12/16/2024 at 9:19 AM, Deluge said:

On 12/16/2024 at 2:44 AM, Scott75 said:

If you look at the nested quotes in the first part of this post, you'll see that I first brought up the KKK after you'd said "The key now is to get the trannies, and all the other radical activists, back in their lane so America can recover from the woke infection." You may not be aware of the fact, but the term tranny is a slur. Wikipedia spells it out:

**

Tranny is an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual,^[1] often specifically a transgender woman.^[2]

During the early 2000s, there was some confusion and debate over whether the term was considered as a slur, was considered acceptable, or a reappropriated term of unity and pride, but by 2017, the term had been banned by several major media stylebooks and was considered hate speech by Facebook.^[3][4]

**

Source:

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

 

The KKK and other groups of this nature also use coded language on those who they dislike. There's an article that delves into how politicians use coded language to appeal to those who dislike various groups, from blacks to the LGBTQ community. It can be seen here:

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/1/10889138/coded-language-thug-bossy

The word "Tranny" fits. It fits because the trannies have gotten aggressive. They've planted their flag at the top of the democrat party and they want the entire planet embracing their agenda. This kind of behavior justifies everything we throw at them.

For the audience, I've already responded to Deluge's first 2 sentences in post #764. Bottom line, insulting people you disagree with is generally not the best way to resolve differences.

As to his notion that they've "planted their flag at the top of the democrat party", it's the first time I've even heard this claim.

As to his notion that they "want the entire planet embracing their agenda", I haven't seen any evidence that the transgender community even -has- a unified agenda, other than being accepted for who they are.

[Scott75]

On 12/16/2024 at 10:06 AM, Yakuda said:

On 12/14/2024 at 9:29 AM, Scott75 said:

It all has to do with how people are defining terms like gender. You clearly want to equate a person's sex with a person's gender, but a significant amount of people no longer do this. Wikipedia gets into all of this in its introduction to the gender term:

**

Gender includes the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity.^[1][2] Depending on the context, this may include sex-based social constructs (i.e. gender roles) as well as gender expression.^[3][4][5] Most cultures use a gender binary, in which gender is divided into two categories, and people are considered part of one or the other (girls/women and boys/men);^[6][7][8] those who are outside these groups may fall under the umbrella term non-binary. A number of societies have specific genders besides "man" and "woman," such as the hijras of South Asia; these are often referred to as third genders (and fourth genders, etc.). Most scholars agree that gender is a central characteristic for social organization.^[9]

The word is also used as a synonym for sex, and the balance between these usages has shifted over time.^[10][11][12] In the mid-20th century, a terminological distinction in modern English (known as the sex and gender distinction) between biological sex and gender began to develop in the academic areas of psychology, sociology, sexology, and feminism.^[13][14] Before the mid-20th century, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.^[3][1] In the West, in the 1970s, feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. The distinction between gender and sex is made by most contemporary social scientists in Western countries,^[15][16][17] behavioral scientists and biologists,^[18] many legal systems and government bodies,^[19] and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO.^[20]

**

Full article:

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

It's irrelevant what people longer do. You can comprehend can't you that if 100 people agree a pig is a horse that doesn't mean the pig is actually a horse? There is an old story attributed to Abraham Lincoln where he asked in a meeting how many legs a dog has if you count the dogs tail as a leg. When they said 5 he said a tail isnt a leg. Why do you people think we all must agree with this stupidity? 

You seem to be asserting that calling a transgender man a man is the same thing as calling a tail a leg. I don't agree with that assertion. Furthermore, it's quite clear that there is a growing group of people that support transgender people to use the gender they identify with. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that, so long as there are words to differentiate between transgender and cisgender individuals if there's a need to know a person's biological sex is.

[Scott75]

On 12/16/2024 at 10:28 AM, Deluge said:

On 12/16/2024 at 3:07 AM, Scott75 said:

First of all, no one is fighting biology here. The issue is how we're defining words. As to normality, I decided to look into the term and decided that what best describes what you're talking about are social norms. I found some interesting points in Wikipedia's article on the term. This one, for instance:

**

Three stages have been identified in the life cycle of a norm: (1) Norm emergence – norm entrepreneurs seek to persuade others of the desirability and appropriateness of certain behaviors; (2) Norm cascade – when a norm obtains broad acceptance; and (3) Norm internalization – when a norm acquires a "taken-for-granted" quality.^[7] 

**

 

This part too:

**

Deviance also causes multiple emotions one experiences when going against a norm. One of those emotions widely attributed to deviance is guilt. Guilt is connected to the ethics of duty which in turn becomes a primary object of moral obligation. 

**

 

That, in turn, leads to unfortunate things such as this:

**

Moretz has publicly supported LGBT equality.^[84] Moretz, who is gay, also has two gay brothers; Moretz states they had initially tried to "pray the gay away" to appease their community.^[85]

**

Source:

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

Yes, you are fighting biology. You're saying that biology is no longer the sole determinant of sex.

No, I'm not. I, along with a lot of other people, have simply separated a person's biological sex with a person's gender. If knowing a person's biological sex is important, one can ask them their biological sex, or, if they have identified as a male or female, by asking them if they are cisgender or transgender. There is also the fact that some people are born intersex. In case you haven't heard of the term:

**

Intersex people are individuals born with any of several sex characteristics, including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies".^[1][2]

Sex assignment at birth usually aligns with a child's external genitalia. The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 1:4,500–1:2,000 (0.02%–0.05%).^[3] Other conditions involve the development of atypical chromosomes, gonads, or hormones.^[4][2] Some persons may be assigned and raised as a girl or boy but then identify with another gender later in life, while most continue to identify with their assigned sex.^[5][6][7] The number of births where the baby is intersex has been reported differently depending on who reports and which definition of intersex is used. Anne Fausto-Sterling and her book co-authors claim the prevalence of "nondimorphic sexual development" in humans might be as high as 1.7%.^[8][9] However, a response published by Leonard Sax reports this figure includes conditions such as late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia and Klinefelter syndrome, which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex; Sax states, "if the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", stating the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018% (one in 5,500 births), about 100 times less than Fausto-Sterling's estimate.^[4][10][11]

**

Source:

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

On 12/16/2024 at 10:28 AM, Deluge said:

On 12/16/2024 at 3:07 AM, Scott75 said:

On 11/16/2024 at 10:53 AM, Deluge said:

And the majority of US citizens want the words male and female to be according to their biological sexes.

First of all, do you have evidence that this is true?

I have the national election as evidence.

The American national elections are only evidence that more voting Americans preferred Trump over Kamala.

[Scott75]

On 12/16/2024 at 10:34 AM, Deluge said:

On 12/16/2024 at 4:12 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/14/2024 at 9:58 AM, User said:

So... if you change all normal people to cisgender and then label all trans people as male and female... everyone will know they are trans still.

This isn't about changing anyone, this is about what labels we use for different categories of people. Secondly, I'm not advocating that terms like cisgender be used all the time, quite the reverse, I think they should be used sparingly, in situations where knowing whether someone is cisgender or transgender is important. The same goes for people who are transgender. In other cases, simply using the gender a person identifies with is sufficient.

It's about changing EVERYONE.

No, it's not. How we categorize/label people doesn't change who they are. 

On 12/16/2024 at 10:34 AM, Deluge said:

You're trying to shoehorn your ridiculous terms into mainstream society, and it's pissing Americans off.

First of all, they're not "my" terms. As has been mentioned in this thread before, cisgender is a term that was coined by a biologist back in 1994, and has since gained fairly widespread acceptance. Wikipedia details the term's growing acceptance since its inception:

**

Academic use

Medical academics use the term and have recognized its importance in transgender studies since the 1990s.^[15][16][17] After the terms cisgender and cissexual were used in a 2006 article in the Journal of Lesbian Studies^[18] and Serano's 2007 book Whipping Girl,^[19] the former gained further popularity among English-speaking activists and scholars.^[20][21][22] Cisgender was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015, defined as "designating a person whose sense of personal identity corresponds to the sex and gender assigned to him or her at birth (in contrast with transgender)".^[23] Perspectives on History states that since this inclusion, the term has increasingly become common usage.^[11]

**

Source:

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

[Scott75]

On 12/16/2024 at 10:43 AM, CdnFox said:

On 12/16/2024 at 3:24 AM, Scott75 said:

I'm going to assume you meant something like "Dude" instead of "Do". Anyway, you haven't provided any evidence that I've been dishonest.

You've been dishonest. A number of times. And we don't have to provide proof.

I didn't ask for proof, I asked for -evidence-. Now, you could say that you don't need to provide evidence either, and that's certainly true. It's just that people who make assertions without evidence to back them up aren't credible.

Edited December 26, 2024 by Scott75

[Scott75]

On 12/16/2024 at 10:53 AM, CdnFox said:

On 12/16/2024 at 3:24 AM, Scott75 said:

On 11/16/2024 at 11:44 AM, CdnFox said:

Do people are just sick of dealing with your dishonesty.

I'm going to assume you meant something like "Dude" instead of "Do". Anyway, you haven't provided any evidence that I've been dishonest.

Hard to say, you clumped so many Quotes together I'm not even a million percent sure who you're talking to. Is this your very first time on a discussion forum junior?

I've been posting in online forums for around 3 decades now. Which has certainly given me enough time to realize when someone is trying to foist the blame for their own typos on me using spurious logic.

[Scott75]

On 12/16/2024 at 10:53 AM, CdnFox said:

On 12/16/2024 at 3:24 AM, Scott75 said:

On 11/16/2024 at 11:44 AM, CdnFox said:

It doesn't matter anymore because you don't matter.

Personally, I think that everyone matters, even people like you who say things like this.

No you don't.

If I were to ask you to provide evidence for your assertion, I imagine you'd say that you don't need to provide proof (which I never asked for) and call it a day.

On 12/16/2024 at 10:53 AM, CdnFox said:

You've already dismissed people's opinion is being utterly irrelevant as long as you don't like it.

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion.

On 12/16/2024 at 10:53 AM, CdnFox said:

On 12/16/2024 at 3:24 AM, Scott75 said:

On 11/16/2024 at 11:44 AM, CdnFox said:

You're just a dishonest sack of crap and nobody's that interested in playing your troll games.

These ad hominem attacks of yours are a real disgrace. 

You're the disgrace here you narcissistic uneducated talking point robot. [more insults follow]

You certainly provide ample evidence that you have a real penchant for character assasination. 

[Scott75]

On 12/21/2024 at 7:28 AM, Nationalist said:

On 12/21/2024 at 6:47 AM, Scott75 said:

I don't see any hubris in the article I posted. You had asked whether a woman can procreate without a man. I pointed out that if we are defining women as people who identify as women, the answer is yes, so long as one of the women is a biological man- the article proved that.

As to what's to stopping things like the video you linked to from happening, I think the police officer made a pretty compelling case why a person identifying as a cat doesn't work if you're driving a car.

Hubris and social rot.

That's it? I feel like I'm debating with a grade schooler who thinks "I know you are, but what am I" is the way to win a debate -.-

[Scott75]

On 12/21/2024 at 9:02 AM, Deluge said:

On 12/21/2024 at 6:37 AM, Scott75 said:

Well, for starters, it'd probably help bring awareness to the fact that using the term tranny/trannies is now generally considered offensive:

**

Tranny is an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual,^[1] often specifically a transgender woman.^[2]

During the early 2000s, there was some confusion and debate over whether the term was considered as a slur, was considered acceptable, or a reappropriated term of unity and pride, but by 2017, the term had been banned by several major media stylebooks and was considered hate speech by Facebook.^[3][4]

**

Source:

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

To be fair, I myself didn't know it was offensive until I looked up the term.

I use perjoratives on agenda pushers. I always have and I always will.

If this conversation is to move forward, I think we need to agree on what an agenda pusher -is-. I went looking online for a definition and found this one in some small forum:

**

It means that you are forcing/pushing other people to accept your opinions, actions, values while disregarding theirs.

**

Source:

https://hinative.com/questions/20350859

I we can agree to that definition, I would argue that I've done a -lot- of listening to other people's opinions, actions and values, and I've done it -without- resorting to personal attacks. Anyway, given the above definition, I find what you say -after- your above comment to be particularly ironic. Quoting what you said after below:

**

Agenda pushers are aggressive and highly obnoxious, so if you can't handle the pushback then it's best to just walk away and self-insultate.

**

It almost sounds like you know you're an agenda pusher and you just engaged in a freudian slip. 

[Scott75]

On 12/21/2024 at 9:02 AM, CdnFox said:

On 12/21/2024 at 6:37 AM, Scott75 said:

Well, for starters, it'd probably help bring awareness to the fact that using the term tranny/trannies is now generally considered offensive:

**

Tranny is an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual,^[1] often specifically a transgender woman.^[2]

During the early 2000s, there was some confusion and debate over whether the term was considered as a slur, was considered acceptable, or a reappropriated term of unity and pride, but by 2017, the term had been banned by several major media stylebooks and was considered hate speech by Facebook.^[3][4]

**

Source:

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

To be fair, I myself didn't know it was offensive until I looked up the term.

So that's THREE accounts you have here 

Apparently your delusion that I had 2 accounts here wasn't enough -.-

Edited December 26, 2024 by Scott75

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Scott75 said:

That's it? I feel like I'm debating with a grade schooler who thinks "I know you are, but what am I" is the way to win a debate -.-

You can feel anyway you like. You can even feel like you're a male or a female. But only one will ever be true. You can claim 2 women can procreate. But that will never be true.

Yes Scott, you can feel all sorts of interesting ideas. However you cannot feel like using the incorrect changeroom, compete in women's sports if you are a male, promote drag in grade school, act lude in public, nor dress out of uniform in the military.

Other than that...feel away.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

@CdnFox does not agree with @Michael Hardner. Rather than refute his argument, CdnFox attacks Michael as a person, and anyone who agrees with him. 

I don't know why people continue to engage with my posts when they think I'm an immoral liar. 

This is about a discussion board. You have to have a modicum of respect in order to engage with someone, and clearly they don't so I ignore them. 

For my part, I have liked posts from the fox and the user.  They make good points from time to time.  I don't think they're liars but I don't see the point of discussing with them if they think I'm an immoral liar 🤔

[Scott75]

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

7 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

@CdnFox does not agree with @Michael Hardner. Rather than refute his argument, CdnFox attacks Michael as a person, and anyone who agrees with him. 

I don't know why people continue to engage with my posts when they think I'm an immoral liar. 

This is about a discussion board. You have to have a modicum of respect in order to engage with someone, and clearly they don't so I ignore them. 

For my part, I have liked posts from the fox and the user.  They make good points from time to time.  I don't think they're liars but I don't see the point of discussing with them if they think I'm an immoral liar 🤔

As to your first paragraph, I don't think I've ever had hard evidence that someone is -trying- to deceive someone else in an online forum, unless you count sarcastic posts. So I've never had to ask myself if someone who I believe is trying to deceive me and/or others would be worth responding to. Perhaps they think that by responding and accusing you and others here of being immoral liars, they are warning virtuous posters? 

As to your second paragraph, I think you may be right in regards to having to have some respect for someone in order to engage with someone. What I feel strongly about is to -not- engage in the types of personal attacks that they engage in. All such personal attacks do is distract from the actual subject of the thread. At worst, this may actually be the goal, whether conscious or unconscious. I've dealt with a lot of controversial subjects and I wouldn't be surprised if some posters who've disagreed with me would prefer to silence me then truly deal with the points I'm making. 

As to your third paragraph, I agree that CdnFox and User have made some good points. I think the best example is the issue of minors getting hormones/hormone blockers/trans surgery. I think their largest problems are that they have strong penchants for jumping to erroneous conclusions, with CdnFox engaging in a lot of personal attacks. Despite these drawbacks, I still think that it's worth engaging with their posts, although I do draw the line at some especially egregious posts with some pretty nasty personal attacks. I think a big part of it is that they're not the only people who post in this forum. I think I get recharged from seeing posts from those on 'my side' in any given thread. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

 

1. As to your third paragraph, I agree that CdnFox and User have made some good points. I think the best example is the issue of minors getting hormones/hormone blockers/trans surgery.

2. I still think that it's worth engaging with their posts 

1. Yes, and as for the example you submit... There are plenty of good sources to to fuel the discussion posted here also. 

Also, it's worth pointing out.... I do not have a closed mind on this topic because the science itself is still open, or rather the public health framework. The UK is not certain about what's being done, and my aforementioned interview points out that groupthink has led to some young people being treated without adequate review. 

But because I refuse to attack the medical profession, parents and so on, I am treated with disrespect. Fair enough, you don't have to respect me. But why should I talk to you in that case? 

It's such a head Scratcher. And arrogant too. Nobody is owed a response.

2. I don't think so. I will read them but that's not the same as engaging. Not to say that I never do it.

 

 

[Scott75]

On 12/21/2024 at 9:44 AM, User said:

On 12/21/2024 at 5:29 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/14/2024 at 10:17 AM, User said:

All you did is link back to the same baseless assertion. LOL

I imagine you only looked at what I wrote in the post of mine that I linked to, not the nested quotes in said post. Perhaps the following post, which was one of the nested quotes, will help jog your memory as to your flip flopping:

Nope. 

If you want to accuse me of flip-flopping, then let's see the flip and then the flop you are specifically calling out.

I went and looked at the post I referenced above. The post itself, with its nested quotes, certainly seemed to support my assertion, but when I looked at the quote one post -before- the included quotes, it made me wonder if perhaps you are right. That is, I'm beginning to think that it's possible you've never acknowledged that there is more than one definition for terms like male and female. This, despite the fact that well known sources of information such as Wikipedia make it clear that there is in fact more than one definition. The definitions that you have such a hard time accepting exists is spelled out on Wikipedia articles on male and female:

**

In humans, the word male can also be used to refer to gender, in the social sense of gender role or gender identity.^[7]

**

Source:

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

 

**

In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender in the social sense of gender role or gender identity.^[5][6]

**

Source:

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

[Scott75]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

20 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

As to your third paragraph, I agree that CdnFox and User have made some good points. I think the best example is the issue of minors getting hormones/hormone blockers/trans surgery.

Yes, and as for the example you submit... There are plenty of good sources to to fuel the discussion posted here also. 

Also, it's worth pointing out.... I do not have a closed mind on this topic because the science itself is still open, or rather the public health framework. The UK is not certain about what's being done, and my aforementioned interview points out that groupthink has led to some young people being treated without adequate review. 

But because I refuse to attack the medical profession, parents and so on, I am treated with disrespect. Fair enough, you don't have to respect me. But why should I talk to you in that case? 

It's such a head Scratcher. And arrogant too. Nobody is owed a response.

I agree that no one is owed a response. And as I've mentioned, there are some responses I've gotten, in particular from CdnFox, that are so egregious, that even I don't respond, other than perhaps with a report of harassment. For me, I think the main issue is that in a lot of posts, even some with insults in them, there are points that I think should be addressed. I fully concede that I do have doubts as to whether I should be the one doing the addressing. As a matter of fact, earlier on, I took almost a month long break from responding to anyone in this thread. I'm active in other online forums and there were some subjects in other forums that temporarily got me to prioritize them. But I did eventually come back.

 

[Scott75]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

26 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

As to your third paragraph, I agree that CdnFox and User have made some good points. I think the best example is the issue of minors getting hormones/hormone blockers/trans surgery. I think their largest problems are that they have strong penchants for jumping to erroneous conclusions, with CdnFox engaging in a lot of personal attacks. Despite these drawbacks, I still think that it's worth engaging with their posts [snip]

I don't think so. I will read them but that's not the same as engaging. Not to say that I never do it.

Well, like I said in my previous post, I do have doubts sometimes as to whether it's worth it, and there may come another time when I decide that responding to other posts, possibly in other forums, is more worth my time, at least temporarily. But I definitely think the issues we're discussing are quite important and unfortunately, I don't know of a better place to discuss them with people who disagree with my own viewpoints on some of these things. 

[Scott75]

On 12/21/2024 at 9:44 AM, User said:

On 12/21/2024 at 6:14 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/14/2024 at 10:25 AM, User said:

You are the one here making these arguments. I am not making the issue about you. I am responding to the absurd and nonsensical things you are here arguing for. 

You haven't provided any evidence that what I am arguing for is "absurd and nonsensical".

Yes, you tried to define a term with the term. 

That is absurd and nonsensical. 

I don't think so, and clearly a lot of other people don't either. It's basically like a recursive acronym, only it's a word instead. As I've said in the past, I think there are other recursive words as well, such as democrat and republican. Ultimately, the way most people identify a democrat or a republican is if they themselves identify as such. Some may ofcourse be sticklers and claim that a democrat or a republican is only such if they are a card carrying member, but most people aren't so strict. 

[Scott75]

On 12/21/2024 at 9:51 AM, User said:

On 12/21/2024 at 6:14 AM, Scott75 said:

In composing this post, I went through the posts in the nested quotes above and I found something that I think was interesting. Back in post #433, I said the following to explain why I believe it makes sense to allow people to define themselves as the gender they identify with, which you quoted:

**

My reasoning is fairly simple- some people who are born of one biological gender identify as the other one socially.

**

The beginning of your response was this:

**

That is not what you are here doing. You are here wanting us to use different definitions of the words to accommodate these delusions.

**

I focused in on the fact that you seemed to think this was all about me, but there was another element I didn't address at all, which was your contention that "that" was not what I was doing. What is it that you think I wasn't doing?

If you want to go back and dig up long past posts, then go back to quote them all. I am not playing this dumb game where you pick out things long past to try to revisit. 

I re-read what you wrote in post #453 and I think I get it now. It's right there, in the second sentence. You thought I was "here wanting us to use different definitions of the words". It -seems- that you are actually recognizing that these words actually -have- different definitions, but you keep on denying that they do despite all the evidence to the contrary, so I'll let you decide what you meant. 

[Scott75]

On 12/21/2024 at 9:54 AM, User said:

On 12/21/2024 at 5:44 AM, Scott75 said:

As I've said many times before, this isn't about me. What I find ironic is that before I started posting in this thread, I had some different points of view. For instance, I thought that J.K. Rowling was right when she made her famous tweet. But the more I got into this debate, the more I came to believe that she was slightly off. Certainly not so off that she deserved the blacklisting she got, but off in the sense that I now agree with the new definitions of terms like man and woman in that they should be for people who identify as such, and add terms like cisgender or transgender if knowing a person's biological sex is important.

As I have said many times before, you are the one here making these arguments. I am responding to what you say.

We already have a way to know someones biological sex. We call them men and women, males and females. If there is someone who believes they are something they are not and wants to role play, we call them trans. 

As I've said before, a good amount of people, including myself, have decided to expand our definitions of words like men and women, males and females, to include trans people within those definitions. You may not like the fact that I and others have done this, but we've done this all the same and pretending it hasn't happened just shows that you're in denial of this fact.