Are you a man or a woman?

[Scott75]

21 hours ago, User said:

On 12/28/2024 at 7:31 AM, Scott75 said:

And yet, in post #490, you said that I was creating a problem. This is how this conversation thread started. I asked you what problem you thought I was creating and then you somehow came to the conclusion that because I asked you this question, there was no problem at all. Anyway, let me spell it out to you once more: the problem is that we have 2 factions within the U.S. and around the world, one that supports being more supportive of the LGBT community, and one that doesn't. Eventually, I believe that the faction that supports the LGBT community will win, but until then, the struggle continues. This is ofcourse a simplification of sorts, but I think it's the gist of the issue. 

Well, now you are on to arguing about a different problem. Define more supportive. 

If you are talking about helping them connect with the mental health they need, helping them deal with their mental health so as to avoid suicide, I am all for being more supportive. 

So, your ideas of more supportive and mine are likely worlds apart. 

Your idea of more supportive here is that I have to be called cisgender and accept nonsensical and absurd definitions of male and female. 

Out of the two of us, my notion of more supportive actually helps them.

Accepting terms like cisgender is a natural consequence of accepting the fact that many people now include anyone who identifies as a given gender to be that gender. You can dislike this new definition for what gender means, but it doesn't change the fact that many people now use this definition. As a result, if one wants to know if someone is -biologically- male or female, adding a term like cis or trans can help clarify things. 

[Scott75]

22 hours ago, User said:

On 12/28/2024 at 7:21 AM, Scott75 said:

Trans people tend to define themselves as men and women. Here is the problem, at least for people like you. You don't accept that a trans woman is a real woman, while others do. 

No, that is not my problem at all. That is their problem. 

It is only a problem for me in as much as someone like you or them insists I must play along. Nope. 

A trans woman is not a real woman. Hence the reason you have to say trans woman. 

Ah, but that's just it, you see, no one "has to say" trans woman. That's a choice that's made by some, such as yourself. Others choose not to make that choice. This, in turn, can get confusing if people want to differentiate between transgender and cisgender women. Simple solution is to welcome terms like transgender and cisgender.

[Deluge]

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

No, I'm not saying that at all. No one can change a person's biological sex.

I see, so what you're really saying is that there are two types of women: biological women and psychological women, and both are equally women. This, of course, would mean that women with penises need to be in the same bathrooms and locker rooms as women with vaginas. And, or course, this is exacty what women with vaginas have been fighting against, but activists like you really don't give a shit what women with vaginas think, because you've been too busy screaming and shedding tears for the women with penises. 

Do you understand how stupid your thinking is? 

[User]

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

Ah, but that's just it, you see, no one "has to say" trans woman. That's a choice that's made by some, such as yourself. Others choose not to make that choice. This, in turn, can get confusing if people want to differentiate between transgender and cisgender women. Simple solution is to welcome terms like transgender and cisgender.

Once again... as I have already said, far fewer people choose to say cisgender. You are creating a bigger problem than the nonexistent one you are arguing about. 

The simple thing to do here is to call trans people trans. 

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

Accepting terms like cisgender is a natural consequence of accepting the fact that many people now include anyone who identifies as a given gender to be that gender. You can dislike this new definition for what gender means, but it doesn't change the fact that many people now use this definition. As a result, if one wants to know if someone is -biologically- male or female, adding a term like cis or trans can help clarify things. 

Nope. Just call men males and women females and trans people trans. 

Edited December 29, 2024 by User

[User]

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I agree that you quoted me. 

Great. 

[User]

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I stand by my point that some of the behaviours in the anti-gender movement, of which you clearly seem to be a part of, are quite similar to those taken by groups such as the KKK, although they are perhaps more extreme in their hate for transgender people. An article on a KKK flyer on transgender people can be seen here:

https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/hateful-anti-transgender-flyer-distributed-by-kkk-in-alabama-neighborhood

Try actually responding to my comments this time. Here you go:
 

It adds nothing to the discussion other than to lump someone in with an obviously bad group like the KKK. It is a petty and disgusting jab that makes this personal. To the point again... you are not above the fray. 

If you want to lecture people on name calling or personal insults, deal with your own attempts to make things personal here. At least have the honesty to own up to it instead of this pathetic attempt to weasel your way out of it.

[User]

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

In this particular argument, I'm just pointing out that "different groups of people define men and women differently". You can choose to ignore this fact, but the fact remains regardless.

So... you don't believe it then?

YOU are the one here pushing this argument, you are not merely saying that these things exist. 

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I'm not 'fabricating' court cases, or Wikipedia articles detailing the new uses for terms like gender.

 

You have an amazing inability to actually respond to what is said. 

I did not say you were fabricating court cases or Wikipedia articles. 

[User]

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I was telling Deluge that he seemed to have a case of transphobia and didn't realize that you weren't the person I'd been talking to. In any case, you also seem to have a case of transphobia.

Once again, you have no room to cry on here about people calling you names when you engage in the same personal attacks. 

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

No, it's just a label that I think fits people like you and Deluge. If you'd like to argue that you aren't transphobic, by all means, present your evidence.

It is not my job to disprove your baseless assertions. That is because you are an ignorant a$$hole and until you prove otherwise, you are an igorant a$$hole. See how that works?

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I don't think anyone should be called stupid or dumb. I don't see how it helps to understand a person. Calling someone transphobic, on the other hand, can explain a fair amount about a person, especially in a debate on trans issues.

No, calling someone transphobic is a baseless assertion about them as a person that adds nothing to the discussion. You are only seeking to dismiss them... because you are stupid and dumb. 

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

That being said, I suspect that he'd also qualify as having transphobia. Same with you.

No worries, you clearly qualify as an ignorant a$$hole. 

[User]

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I thought I did. I think part of the issue is that it's hard for me to understand that you can't seem to grasp that different people have different definitions of certain words from your own. 

You can't seem to grasp that I understand this, I just soundly reject what you are doing. Because you are an ignorant a$$hole. See how this works now?

Here is a Wikipedia definition on that for you, fits you perfectly!:

"The word is mainly used as a vulgarity, generally to describe people who are viewed as stup1d, incompetent, unpleasant, or detestable."

 

[Scott75]

On 12/28/2024 at 11:30 AM, User said:

On 12/28/2024 at 7:19 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/24/2024 at 9:31 AM, User said:

I have not forgotten that people like you want to try to change the meaning of male and female to the nonsensical gibberish you do. I soundly reject it.

No, I'm just trying to point out that a good amount of people have already changed their meaning of male and female. You can deny that this has happened, but it's quite clear that it has, and this is reflected in both dictionaries and the law.

No, you agree with this and you are here defending and advocating for it.

The fact that I agree with a fair amount of people on this point doesn't change the fact that definitions for male and female that include trans people were put in place long before I arrived here to point this fact out.

On 12/28/2024 at 11:30 AM, User said:

On 12/28/2024 at 7:19 AM, Scott75 said:

On the contrary, I think that by including terms like 'cis' in dating apps, it can help people -avoid- finding people who wouldn't be compatible for them.

So... they can call themselves Trans. We already have a word for that.

Trans people can certainly call themselves trans, and they do. But if you want to make it clear that you are -not- trans, then cis is a good word to use.

On 12/28/2024 at 11:30 AM, User said:

Yet again, we don't have to relabel 99% of the normal people with something different to accommodate the 1%. 

In many contexts, people who are trans and cis can just say they are the gender that they identify themselves with. However, in cases where knowing a person's -biological- sex becomes important, that's when we can use words like trans and cis.

Edited December 29, 2024 by Scott75

[User]

1 minute ago, Scott75 said:

The fact that I agree with a fair amount of people on this point doesn't change the fact that definitions for male and female that include trans people were put in place long before I arrived here to point this fact out.

Then stop with the ruse as if you are just some objective, neutral observer here. You are not. 

2 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Trans people can certainly call themselves trans, and they do. But if you want to make it clear that you are -not- trans, then cis is a good word to use.

You don't need to. Just don't call yourself trans. 

2 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

In many contexts, people who are trans and cis can just say they are the gender that they identify themselves with. However, in cases where knowing a person's -biological- sex becomes important, that's when we can use words like trans and cis.

You don't need to. That is why we have words like male and female and trans. 

[Scott75]

On 12/28/2024 at 11:33 AM, User said:

On 12/28/2024 at 5:41 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/23/2024 at 9:44 AM, User said:

No, terms like cisgender are not necessary.

Again, they are if some people define terms like male and female to include anyone who identifies as male and female. You seem to want to deny that this is, in fact, how many people define those terms, including myself now, but that doesn't change the fact that they do.

Well, too bad for them.

Ultimately, dictionaries and the courts will decide what definitions will win the day. In regards to court cases, it's clear that both sides have won and lost battles.

On 12/28/2024 at 11:33 AM, User said:

I don't deny that people like you are here pushing this madness. I am soundly rejecting it. 

I'm just pointing out facts on the ground. I also think that this is how things should be, but that point is secondary.

[User]

2 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I'm just pointing out facts on the ground. I also think that this is how things should be, but that point is secondary.

Oh great, back to playing your dumb game of pretending like you are not here advocating for this... 

[Deluge]

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Who determines who is a RINO and who isn't? I took a look at Wikipedia's page on RINO, found these interesting quotes:

**

During Republican primary campaign season, some conservative organizations target Republicans who fail to adopt their stances by referring to them as RINOs. A "RINO Hunters Club" formed by the National Federation of Republican Assemblies has taken political action against those they considered RINOs.^[5][6] The fiscally conservative 501(c)4 organization Club for Growth started the "RINO Watch" list to monitor "Republican office holders around the nation who have advanced egregious anti-growth, anti-freedom or anti-free market policies"; other conservative groups published similar lists.

[snip]

Recently, the term has been used to describe Republican critics of former President Donald Trump, with Trump himself tweeting that Congressional Republicans who recognized Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 US Presidential election are RINOs. Some Republicans critical of Trump occasionally used the epithet to describe Trump himself, due to his history as a registered Democrat.^[8][9]

**

Source:

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

That's easy. If you're tolerant of woke bullshit then you're a RINO. 

[Deluge]

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

That makes sense. Times change, and there will always be some who don't like the changes. Sometimes, the changes are bad, such as the addition of harmful herbicides and pesticides in our foods. Sometimes, the changes are good. I ofcourse believe that the addition of terms such as gender identity is a good thing. I'm guessing you don't.

Unsubstantiated assertions are easy to make. What's generally much harder is to back them up with evidence. 

Yes, change does happen, but some changes are a lot worse than other changes; take your gender argument, for instance, that's among the worst kinds of changes there could ever be. It's not healthy for a society to adapt to people with mental disorders. If someone is having trouble coping with normalcy, then they need to check themselves into a mental facility. 

[Deluge]

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

False. As I've mentioned before, I'm a cisgender male.

 

Wrong. You're just a male. And after your extensive research in the woke rabbit hole, It's fair to say that you are now a confused male. 

You really need to get help. 

[Deluge]

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

As I've said many times, I have nothing against biology

That's right, Scott75, even a staunch wokeness disciple like you can make room for the OTHER half of womanhood - the biological half of womanhood.  

[Deluge]

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I asked if you had a link handy for this alleged LGBT agenda. You provided a link to an LGBT activist site. That's not what I'd asked for. I suspect there is no LGBT agenda, just activist sites like the one you provided.

If yet to see any evidence for your notion that "all" of the LGBT community is unified in anything.

The agenda's throughout all of those links I provided you. 

And I never said "all" of the LGBT community was in on the agenda. Some stay home and keep to themselves. Those people I'm cool with. It's the bigmouth rainbow soldiers that I'm talking about. 

Edited December 29, 2024 by Deluge

[Deluge]

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I think this article is useful in understanding the danger of hateful words used on a group of people:

https://itstartedwithwords.org/statements/

It has nothing to do with hate. "Hate" is a word radicals like you throw at your opposition to try and force them into silence.

When I call someone a stunted pervert, it means that person is an actual stunted pervert. I don't sugar coat. I just tell it like it is.  

[Deluge]

7 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Thank you :-).

What I've been trying to do is explain to you and a few others here why I believe what I believe.

You're doing more than that. You're trying to convince others to believe what you believe. You've taken a simple declatarion and turned into an argument for trannies. You're a soldier, Scott75, a soldier for the trans community. Don't try and hide that fact, just be honest about it. 

[User]

14 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You're doing more than that. You're trying to convince others to believe what you believe. You've taken a simple declatarion and turned into an argument for trannies. You're a soldier, Scott75, a soldier for the trans community. Don't try and hide that fact, just be honest about it. 

Its just a game. He knows he can't defend the nonsense he is putting forth, so he is backpedaling and trying to claim he is just some kind of observer of these things. 

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Explain to me how "Do people are just sick of dealing with your dishonesty" is a proper English sentence and then we can talk about who made a typo.

I see you're back to your usual game of trying to change the channel. My point was I wasn't talking about your typos or my typos. And here you are talking about typos. I use voice dictation and I don't always get the time to proofread before I move on to something else so occasionally I make errors and I assume that you do too. Nobody said anything different. Which is why i said i didn't have a problem with your typos or my typos, the problem was your argument. 

But unfortunately you're either too stupid or too dishonest to understand that very simple concept. Not surprising. 

And i see you're back to spamming the board with 100's of replies rather than just doing so once per person. I'll deal with your mess here in one reply: 

The united states is still not the entire rest of the world which is what you tried to drag into the conversation. Nobody cares enough about you to care where you were born or where you're living now. And you were responding to my post not the original post so it's not really relevant what the original post said is it. Nice try it deflection though.

Trans have their rights in Canada in the US, every bit as much as everyone else and they are certainly able to refer to themselves however they like so your attempts to pretend otherwise are a joke.

And your dishonesty is factual, not derogatory. However the end of the day you have been insulting in many ways. But you think it's okay to be insulting as long as you feel the insult is acceptable. But if somebody insults you then well that's terrible. You're being insulted because you are being an insufferable and insulting twit.  Do better and you'll get insulted  less.  But don't be insulting jerk and then complain about other people being insulting

Your dismissal of people's argument as transphobic just because you cannot come up with a counter argument is both pathetic and a great example of how you like to insult people but somehow when you do it it's not an insult! Magic!

And if you want to refer to the fact that nobody is buying you or complete and utter bullshit which you cannot make a rationed argument about as having reached an impasse then sure. Why not. The simple fact of the matter is you don't get to explain anything. If you want to make a statement you need to be able to defend that with logic and reason and you have utterly failed to do so. You seem to want us to agree that you are right just because you said you were right while at the same time completely ignoring the arguments that are made demonstrating that you are not right. If you can't address other people's points and simply insist that you're right and stomp your foot when others don't agree then I'm afraid you're going to have to learn to live with impasses in your life.

The fault there is on you for not being able to make a good argument, not with others for not agreeing with your lack of argument.

And of course I know that tranny is a word that is often thought of as derogatory. CIS is often thought of as derogatory and it's certainly used in that way. 

Yet for some reason you are deeply offended if somebody says tranny, but if somebody suggests that you shouldn't be using the word cis You laugh and blow them off and tell them that their opinions and feelings are not relevant.

 

Dude. You are a dishonest person making a dishonest argument and you are a complete and utter hypocrite. That and that alone is why you are getting nowhere in your discussions with other people. Of course people who actually think are going to hold you in contempt I look down on you and your arguments.

I don't know what your goal in coming here was, but if it was to severely torpedo the transgender movement and convince a bunch of people that sympathy and empathy towards the transgender community is misplaced because this is a hostile relationship and trannies will never respect your rights, then well done. Because that is indeed what you have achieved

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, User said:

Its just a game. He knows he can't defend the nonsense he is putting forth, so he is backpedaling and trying to claim he is just some kind of observer of these things. 

Agreed. He's a leftoid impersonating a truth seeker - what a duplicitous a$$hole. lol

[Scott75]

On 12/28/2024 at 11:35 AM, User said:

On 12/28/2024 at 5:41 AM, Scott75 said:

If it were just some "fringe group", then the gender of transgender people would be discounted everywhere and they'd simply be lumped in with those who match their biological gender. That's clearly not the case though.

There is no if about it. This is a fringe group. Less than 1% of the population identifies as trans. 

As if trans people were the only ones who were fighting for their rights. You do remember that I'm not trans, right?

[Scott75]

On 12/28/2024 at 11:39 AM, User said:

On 12/28/2024 at 7:13 AM, Scott75 said:

I see that DUI asked you to define normal in post #751 and you simply linked to an online dictionary in response. I think the more important definition in this case, however, is the definition of abnormal. From the online dictionary you previously linked to, there are 2 definitions for the term:

**

: deviating from the normal or average

a person with abnormal [=exceptional] strength

 

abnormal powers of concentration

 

often : unusual in an unwelcome or problematic way

abnormal behavior

 

abnormal test results

** 

 

The first definition is positive, but the second one is not, and I think we can agree that it's the definition that is most often used. It's for this reason that I think that using this label for trans people is deceiving. There is a lot of talk of gender wars and what I think few realize is that transgender people can be a way to bridge this gap. So instead of terms like "normal" and "abnormal", I think terms like "common" and "uncommon" or "rare" would be better.

No, I do not agree with you nor do I think that is better to use common or uncommon. 

However, to the actual point I am making here, it doesn't matter which you use. Normal or common, my point is still the same. 

You want to force a change that is unnecessary on the common to accommodate the uncommon. No. 

What change do you think I want to force?