Are you a man or a woman?

[User]

Just now, Radiorum said:

Like how you think you are the judge of all humankind?

 

Where have I ever said that?

You really like asking these loaded questions. 

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Your definition is not meaningful, since it excludes transgender females

The definition of a transgender female is a male.

If they want to be called a transgender female then we can certainly look at accommodating that but really if you wanted to find tune it then they would just be transgender. But their biology doesn't change just because they're perception does. A transgender female is a male

[Deluge]

12 hours ago, Radiorum said:

1. Yeah, that, too, but what does that have to do with political activism?

2. No, I am right, You are wrong.

3. Transgenderism is not a fantasy. It is real.

4. No, I got the info from a science book.

1. Political activism is what drives transgenderism. Before it was just an underground thing, now it's f*cking everywhere. How does that happen if it isn't propelled by politically charged a$$holes? The answer is it doesn't. 

2. YOU are never right and the evidence is right there, in your left-wing activism.  

3. TRansgenderism is a real mental illness. Trannies need to be medically treated, not awarded. 

4. No, you got it from a left-wing propaganda book. Much of today's science has been propagandized by the left. You were educated by Marxists, and now you think you're something other than a man. Poor bastard...

[CdnFox]

15 hours ago, Radiorum said:

New evidence shows that it is not a disorder or a mental illness.

 

That's not quite accurate. Gender dysphoria is definitely a disorder and a mental health issue that interferes with people's ability to lead a normal or healthy life and is still listed as such. Not every transgender person has dysphoria but most do to one extent or another and if they don't then really it's just a personal preference and there's no reason why society should play along with it any more than there is if someone decides they're more comfortable as a furry.  

I don't have a big problem calling a  he a she if they prefer as a rule and i don't think many others did either but when they decide to require that by force of law, when speaking the truth which is that person is a biological male is now illegal then there's a huge problem 

So any 'serious' case of transgenderism comes along with mental health issues.  Which is what seperates it from homosexuality for example, gays can have quite happy and healthy lives no matter how gay they are. Some of them argue the more so the better  but transgender people become dysfunctional the more 'trans' they are to the point where it can become crippling. 

There is a pathology and there can't be a pathology without an illness can there. 

15 hours ago, Radiorum said:

There have been a lot of remarks in this thread dismissing transgenderism as fantasy or delusion.

 Well here's where you run into a problem.  Either it's a very mild "case" in which case it's not a medical issue, but really is just a personal preference. Which is fine, people should have the right to their personal preferences but then we do NOT have a duty to accomodate. OR  it's a serious case and then there IS a mental health component. 

And the problem is you're kind of trying to dance between those two things at the same time.  It's not a mental health issue but it is a mental health issue and the people can't help it.

this duality shows up a lot with trans issues.  It's an illness and we have a right to treatment, but it's not an illness.  We have a right to define ourselves however we want but we also have the right to call you cis or whatever else we feel like because you don't have the right to define yourself.  We believe we should have freedom of expression but you should go to jail if you CORRECTLY refer to us by our biological sex.   Gender is not the same as sex and also gender and sex are the same thing.       

The lack of consistency in their arguments is one of the reasons people are starting to turn against them and not take the issue seriously. 

[Legato]

16 hours ago, Radiorum said:

I am cisgender because my body differentiated in the same sex as my brain did in utero.

"Differentiation' is the process of determining the rate of change in a quantity with respect to another quantity. 

So where did your sexual orientation get the value of the quantities?

Did you mean "integration"?

[Radiorum]

On 1/4/2025 at 1:34 PM, Legato said:

"Differentiation' is the process of determining the rate of change in a quantity with respect to another quantity. 

Lol, that's the Math definition. You know, Calculus.

Differentiation during fetal development is a different thing. In the first trimester of pregnancy, an undifferentiated embryo differentiates to male or female (develops testes or ovaries). And in the last trimester of pregnancy, an undifferentiated brain differentiates to a male or female brain.

 

 

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Lol, that's the Math definition. You know, Calculus.

Differentiation during fetal development is a different thing. In the first trimester of pregnancy, an undifferentiated embryo differentiates to male or female (develops testes or ovaries). And in the last trimester of pregnancy, an undifferentiated brain differentiates to a male or female brain.

 

 

So you used the word incorrectly and it's @Legato's fault  

And once again you're trying to switch between sex and gender being different, and being the same thing. 

And now you're also trying to claim that transgenderism IS ACTUALLY a medical condition. This is a biological defect due to the sex and 'male femaleness' of the brain not matching. 

No matter how much you twist this you get back to the same thing - your entire augment is inconsistent, riddled with inaccuracies and indefensible.

If it's a medical defect then lets treat it as such and move on. IF it's not then it's a choice and it's their problem to deal with and they can ASK us to participate in their self deception but we're not obliged. 

[Radiorum]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you used the word incorrectly and it's @Legato's fault  

And once again you're trying to switch between sex and gender being different, and being the same thing. 

And now you're also trying to claim that transgenderism IS ACTUALLY a medical condition. This is a biological defect due to the sex and 'male femaleness' of the brain not matching. 

No matter how much you twist this you get back to the same thing - your entire augment is inconsistent, riddled with inaccuracies and indefensible.

If it's a medical defect then lets treat it as such and move on. IF it's not then it's a choice and it's their problem to deal with and they can ASK us to participate in their self deception but we're not obliged. 

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

 

This is what your ear doctor sees when he examines you I take it   

I get it. You're frustrated because you can't address your own hypocrisy.  Understandable. 

[Deluge]

15 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Lol, that's the Math definition. You know, Calculus.

Differentiation during fetal development is a different thing. In the first trimester of pregnancy, an undifferentiated embryo differentiates to male or female (develops testes or ovaries). And in the last trimester of pregnancy, an undifferentiated brain differentiates to a male or female brain.

Thankfully brain differentiation doesn't mean shit when the sex of a baby is discovered. You're either a boy or a girl.  

[Scott75]

On 12/29/2024 at 11:18 AM, User said:

On 12/29/2024 at 7:16 AM, 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.

Telling someone that they seem to have a case of transphobia, that is, that someone is afraid of people who are transgender, is similar to saying that one seems to have a case of arachnophobia, that is someone who is afraid of spiders. I fully admit that I am somewhat afraid of large spiders. I'll even admit that I am perhaps a bit transphobic myself. That being said, I have done my best to overcome this fear.

On 12/29/2024 at 11:18 AM, User said:

On 12/29/2024 at 7:16 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/27/2024 at 12:01 PM, User said:

 Either way, it is a sad pathetic tactic to make this personal.

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.

I think there's a good amount of evidence to support my assertion in this case, perhaps best denoted by your frequent refusal to acknowledge that terms such as gender, male and female now have definitions that you don't like.

On 12/29/2024 at 11:18 AM, User said:

That is because you are an ignorant a$$hole and until you prove otherwise, you are an igorant a$$hole. See how that works?

First of all, I'd argue that no one should call someone else by the a term. The fact that you decided to replace the s's in the term suggests that either the forum software wouldn't even allow you to use the word, or that you decided to pull your punch a bit because you know that you're going beyond the limits of a civilized discourse.

Secondly, I never said that I -knew- that you were transphobic, only that I thought that it fits people like you and Deluge, and that you were welcome to present evidence that this wasn't the case.

On 12/29/2024 at 11:18 AM, User said:

 

On 12/29/2024 at 7:16 AM, 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.

Perhaps we can just agree to disagree on this point.

Edited January 7 by Scott75

[Scott75]

On 12/29/2024 at 11:23 AM, User said:

On 12/29/2024 at 6:01 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/26/2024 at 10:43 AM, User said:

Possible?

You were the one who made the assertion. You have no evidence for it.

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.

All I'm doing is pointing out words like cisgender and gender identity that have been around for over 3 decades, and that I think they're good additions to the English language. You may not like them and "soundly reject" them, but they won't go away just because of your personal dislike of them. 

[User]

11 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Telling someone that they seem to have a case of transphobia, that is, that someone is afraid of people who are transgender, is similar to saying that one seems to have a case of arachnophobia, that is someone who is afraid of spiders. I fully admit that I am somewhat afraid of large spiders. I'll even admit that I am perhaps a bit transphobic myself. That being said, I have done my best to overcome this fear.

You are not a doctor, this is not a diagnostic therapy session. You are making irrelevant personal comments because you are an ignorant a$$hole who can't make good arguments to back up the stupid nonsense you say on here.

12 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

First of all, I'd argue that no one should call someone else by the a term. 

Cry some more. I am just observing your behavior here. If you don't like being called an ignorant a$$hole, you should stop being an ignorant a$$hole. 

Pretty easy!

14 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Perhaps we can just agree to disagree on this point.

Sure thing a$$hole. 

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

 

1. First of all, I'd argue that no one should call someone else by the a term.  

2. Secondly, I never said that I -knew- that you were transphobic, only that I thought that it fits people like you and Deluge, and that you were welcome to present evidence that this wasn't the case.

 

Just a bystander here, who revels in discussions about taxonomy and also loves epistemic bugaloos.

1. Did you call someone transphobic though ?  Seems from #2 you did.  
2. Do you think that the term is pejorative ?  I don't think "racist" is, and actually had my mind turned by intelligent posters on here who thoughtfully proclaimed themselves to be 'racist'.  Ok then.... But I do think 'ignorant' is pejorative because it implies a refusal to grow.

Help me out.

[Deluge]

20 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

All I'm doing is pointing out words like cisgender and gender identity that have been around for over 3 decades, and that I think they're good additions to the English language. You may not like them and "soundly reject" them, but they won't go away just because of your personal dislike of them. 

No, what you're doing is pushing the trans agenda. 

My thinking is that more and more Americans are waking up to your left-wing bullshit. It won't be long before that stupid wording is relegated back to where it started. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Telling someone that they seem to have a case of transphobia, that is, that someone is afraid of people who are transgender, is similar to saying that one seems to have a case of arachnophobia, that is someone who is afraid of spiders. I fully admit that I am somewhat afraid of large spiders. I'll even admit that I am perhaps a bit transphobic myself. That being said, I have done my best to overcome this fear.

Here's the problem with that. Arachnophobia and most of the other phobias aren't just a fear of something. We don't just call anything we're afraid of a phobia. I would not want to be stabbed but nobody would go around saying I have knifophobia.

What characterizes a phobia is that it is in irrational fear. Your fear of spiders is irrational, the spiders themselves are actually no threat.

So when you throw around words like transphobia what you are trying to do is dismiss the other person's concerns out of hand as being irrational before they even get to discuss them. What you are doing is dehumanizing them and their concerns and saying this person isn't rational, this person is invalid, this person has no legitimate reason for their feelings.

That's why the left enjoys putting the word phobia at the end of the description of people they don't like. 

The vast majority of people are not transphobic. Even the ones that have issues with trans people. For example I am not afraid of trans people, nor are my concerns with regards to issues around trans people irrational. They're perfectly rational, I can describe them with Clarity and point to examples and information which demonstrates their validity.

But rather than address my concerns or the concerns of others raised here people like you will dismiss it as "Transphobic" So that you don't actually have to address the issues.

And in case you're wondering, that would make you the bad people here. People have come forward with legitimate concerns to be addressed and you have blown them off and dehumanized them and try and minimize them rather than address them. You appear to want a confrontational relationship between trans people and straights. 

Which is fine. But remember, that's what you wanted. 

[Scott75]

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Just a bystander here, who revels in discussions about taxonomy and also loves epistemic bugaloos.

1. Did you call someone transphobic though ?  Seems from #2 you did.  
2. Do you think that the term is pejorative ?  I don't think "racist" is, and actually had my mind turned by intelligent posters on here who thoughtfully proclaimed themselves to be 'racist'.  Ok then.... But I do think 'ignorant' is pejorative because it implies a refusal to grow.

Help me out.

I said that some people here had transphobia, which I believe implies that they are transphobic. As to whether it's pejorative, I'd say that it's more about pointing out a specific flaw in certain people. Note, I think that I myself have a bit of transphobia, but I think I'm working hard on overcoming this, in part by having this long discussion here. 

I think that the term racist is the same, I also think I'm probably still a bit racist despite my efforts to overcome this. I'm curious to know what some posters told you to persuade you that it's a good thing :-p. 

[Scott75]

On 12/29/2024 at 11:56 AM, User said:

On 12/29/2024 at 11:53 AM, 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.

I try to be as objective as possible, but I've never said I was neutral in this discussion. I prize things like civility, logic and evidence based reasoning.

On 12/29/2024 at 11:56 AM, User said:

On 12/29/2024 at 11:53 AM, 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. 

As I've said in the past, that -can- work, but it depends on the circumstance. There are certainly circumstances where just saying that you are a man or a woman may not answer whether you are cisgender or transgender. In many circumstances, this may well not matter, in which case, fine. As I've said before, for the past 3 years living in Mexico, I've never once felt the need to tell anyone I was cisgender. But there are some circumstances where it -does- matter, and in those circumstances, I could say that I am cisgender.

On 12/29/2024 at 11:56 AM, User said:

On 12/29/2024 at 11:53 AM, 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. 

As I've explained before, many people, including myself, now accept the fact that terms like male and female, at least when referring to a person's gender, now include anyone who identifies as those genders. You at least recognize that the word trans helps in differentiating between people who may have been born with predominantly male or female parts but identifies as the other gender. Adding the word cis is just a simple way of pointing out that one identifies with one's biological sex.

[Scott75]

On 12/29/2024 at 12:03 PM, User said:

On 12/29/2024 at 12:01 PM, Scott75 said:

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. 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.

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

I have already said numerous times that I think the new definitions are good. The one thing that I think you don't fully understand is that these new definitions were created long before I arrived here and I sincerely doubt they'll be leaving.

[Scott75]

On 12/29/2024 at 1:25 PM, Deluge said:

On 12/29/2024 at 9:01 AM, 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. 

I'd say that if your screening for people you don't like includes crass insults, you're already off to a bad start.

[Scott75]

On 12/29/2024 at 1:29 PM, Deluge said:

On 12/29/2024 at 8:53 AM, 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

Up until this point, we agree.

  

On 12/29/2024 at 1:29 PM, Deluge said:

take your gender argument, for instance, that's among the worst kinds of changes there could ever be.

I think it's also rather important to point out that it's not "my" gender argument- we're talking about definitions that have been created decades ago and are now being used both in well known sources of information, such as Wikipedia, as well as in the courts. I also disagree that it's "among the worst kinds of changes there could ever be".

On 12/29/2024 at 1:29 PM, Deluge said:

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. 

The issue here is, what constitutes a mental disorder? While transphobia is not currently listed as one, that might change in the future. 

As to your referring to normalcy, I'm pretty sure you're referring to social norms. Here's Wikipedia's introduction to this term:

**

A social norm is a shared standard of acceptable behavior by a group.^[1] Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws.^[2] Social normative influences or social norms, are deemed to be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes and well organized and incorporated by major theories which explain human behaviour.^[3] Institutions are composed of multiple norms. Norms are shared social beliefs about behavior; thus, they are distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", and "values", which can be held privately, and which do not necessarily concern behavior.^[4] Norms are contingent on context, social group, and historical circumstances.^[5]

Scholars distinguish between regulative norms (which constrain behavior), constitutive norms (which shape interests), and prescriptive norms (which prescribe what actors ought to do).^[6][7][3] The effects of norms can be determined by a logic of appropriateness and logic of consequences; the former entails that actors follow norms because it is socially appropriate, and the latter entails that actors follow norms because of cost-benefit calculations.^[8]

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] Norms are robust to various degrees: some norms are often violated whereas other norms are so deeply internalized that norm violations are infrequent.^[4][3] Evidence for the existence of norms can be detected in the patterns of behavior within groups, as well as the articulation of norms in group discourse.^[4]

In some societies, individuals often limit their potential due to social norms, while others engage in social movements to challenge and resist these constraints.

**

I'd say that certain norm entrepreneurs have been pretty successful in lobbying to get terms like man and woman expanded so that people who identify as one of these can be one of these. You may not like it, but ultimately what sticks will be what remains in online resources of information and in the courts.

[Scott75]

On 12/29/2024 at 1:32 PM, Deluge said:

On 12/29/2024 at 8:22 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/28/2024 at 10:50 AM, Deluge said:

Scott75 believes transsexualism is America's future, and I think he's gotten highly excited about that idea. I wouldn't be surprised if he's already considering gender reassignment surgery.

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

Wrong. You're just a male.

I'm -pretty- sure that you know that many people now define being a male as anyone who identifies as a male. I'm also pretty sure that you don't consider transgender males and cisgender males to be the same. I certainly don't. So, how can we differentiate between these 2 types of males? Well, one easy way is to preface the term male with either cisgender or transgender. 

[Scott75]

On 12/29/2024 at 1:35 PM, Deluge said:

On 12/29/2024 at 8:13 AM, 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.  

I think I've made clear that I think it's important to differentiate between people who are cisgender and transgender in certain circumstances. I think most people only want to date people who are cisgender. 

[Scott75]

On 12/29/2024 at 1:40 PM, Deluge said:

On 12/29/2024 at 7:58 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/27/2024 at 8:51 PM, Deluge said:

It's not "some" of the trans community; it's ALL of it, including the LGB cultists. 

Check out the link below, and try not to get too excited - this is a public forum, after all. 

https://www.thetaskforce.org/

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.

You certainly used the word all. Quoting:

**

It's not "some" of the trans community; it's ALL of it, including the LGB cultists. 

**

Source:

Post #851

So, do you think that all trans people and "LGB cultists" (whatever that means) have the same agenda?

On 12/29/2024 at 1:40 PM, Deluge said:

Some stay home and keep to themselves. Those people I'm cool with. It's the bigmouth rainbow soldiers that I'm talking about. 

Some you're fine with those in the LGBT community who "stay home and keep to themselves"? Are you suggesting that you are only "cool" with members of the LGBT community if they remain silent on issues that are important to them?

[User]

42 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I try to be as objective as possible, but I've never said I was neutral in this discussion. I prize things like civility, logic and evidence based reasoning.

Clearly you don't prize those things at all, as you are an ignorant a$$hole.