CdnFox Posted November 3, 2024 Report Posted November 3, 2024 2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said: 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. 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. It does not depend on who's saying it. The only time that a pejorative is not actually a pejorative is when the group that it was used against tries to reclaim it. For example gays tend to refer to themselves as gays and f@gs. They've taken pejorative terms and taken them back and own them. Which is a good thing to do but it's the only example where a good Jordan is not a pejorative. Same with blacks and the n-word. They use it all the time and demand that they're the only ones who can because they're reclaiming the word after centuries of it being used to describe them in a negative light. Quote 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". One could say heterosexual male. And that would be good enough. You can argue to your heart's content that n*gger is somehow a GOOD thing to say and a very good description of black people... but really all you're doing is spreading hate. 2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said: 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. I don't think so. What I see is one side attacking the other side. Society in general was fairly open to the idea of transgenders. They had become quite accepting of the gays and this isn't much of a stretch. If anything transgenders were looked on with a little bit more sympathy because of the fact that there's a medical component. But for some reason they wanted to pick a fight. They want to compel my speech while demanding the right to call me a pejorative. They demand that they and their supporters should have access to children without the parents knowing. They deliberately included illustrated books that graphically depict gay sex in elementary school libraries, and insist on books that make transgenderism seem like a popular choice not just an acceptable one. They demand the rights to fight in women's sports despite the fact that they are obviously not women and are much stronger. They demand that a man should be allowed to walk into A female change room in a public pool and dangle their penis in front of a young girl. And if you try and open a dialogue and suggest that there's anything wrong with any of this then they attack you and try and cancel you. I've been very pro gay all my life and very accepting of trans, although I've only known one or two. But my attitude is quickly shifting. For some reason they have decided that they want this to be a hostile confrontation and your commentary on how It's perfectly acceptable for people like you or them to insult people like me with pejorative terms but there's a problem with us being insulting back tells me that there really is no room for negotiation here. Maybe some of their rights are taken away they'll suddenly realize that when you attack other people for their rights they might decide to come back and take a few of yours. I mean seriously, you demand I call a woman a man but you can't even recognize that calling me cis is an insult. Quote
Scott75 Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 8 hours ago, Nationalist said: 8 hours 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". Again, it depends on how a given person defines the words man and woman. 8 hours ago, Nationalist said: 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. I actually currently believe that things like hormones and surgery shouldn't be done until the person wanting them done is an adult. Teens are confused about a lot of things, and I've already heard of examples where they've regretted their decision to get these things. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't learn about terms like cisgender, transgender, etc., just that I don't think they're ready to make any permanent decisions such as surgery. 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 8 hours ago, Nationalist said: 8 hours 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. What is nonsense? 8 hours ago, Nationalist said: 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. I actually agree with you to some extent- I think that at least a fair amount of people who get transition hormones and surgery would have been better off if they'd grown up in an environment that was accepting of their nature in the body they were born with. Unfortunately, that's frequently not the case. I think it may also be why many continue to think that they made the right decision to transition. I think the following testimony from a trans gender man that came out in the "What is a woman?" documentary is very revealing. The following clip is from 55 minutes and 29 seconds in: ** I never fit. I was an alpha female, I was a sales executive, kind of just didn't fit in any box. When psychologists or somebody that I was in love with, or whatever, said that I was in the wrong body, I started to think, well, maybe I am." ** Source: https://rumble.com/v2rpv4w-what-is-a-woman-matt-walsh-full-documentary.html Quote
Nationalist Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said: Again, it depends on how a given person defines the words man and woman. I actually currently believe that things like hormones and surgery shouldn't be done until the person wanting them done is an adult. Teens are confused about a lot of things, and I've already heard of examples where they've regretted their decision to get these things. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't learn about terms like cisgender, transgender, etc., just that I don't think they're ready to make any permanent decisions such as surgery. Man and woman have definitions. But at least you don't advocate for the "gender affirming" bullshit on kids. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
CdnFox Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 3 hours ago, Nationalist said: Man and woman have definitions. But at least you don't advocate for the "gender affirming" bullshit on kids. They do. And in fact so does gender. The problem is these definitions frequently get in the way of the ideologues and their agendas. So they are constantly redefining words to suit their narrative, and often changing them back and forth. We've seen many times how gender is directly tied to sex, then gender is completely independent of sex, and then gender is back to being part of sex again. This guy seems like he's a lot more up and up and straight talking than a lot of the nut bars we've seen, but again here we're back to There's no such thing as a definition, definition can be many things, it depends on who's talking, and all of that is absolutely utter bull crap. If words have no meaning then there's no point in talking 1 Quote
Nationalist Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 7 hours ago, CdnFox said: They do. And in fact so does gender. The problem is these definitions frequently get in the way of the ideologues and their agendas. So they are constantly redefining words to suit their narrative, and often changing them back and forth. We've seen many times how gender is directly tied to sex, then gender is completely independent of sex, and then gender is back to being part of sex again. This guy seems like he's a lot more up and up and straight talking than a lot of the nut bars we've seen, but again here we're back to There's no such thing as a definition, definition can be many things, it depends on who's talking, and all of that is absolutely utter bull crap. If words have no meaning then there's no point in talking Agreed. The idea of "gender fluidity" is quite insane. It denotes a willingness to warp language and nature. They need to have their own word. "Trans" works I believe. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Scott75 Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 (edited) 20 hours ago, User said: 21 hours ago, phoenyx75 said: So does mine. Since we're both cisgender males (or biological males if you prefer), No, just males. As you know, the term male has more than one definition. I know the definition you're using, but it's not a definition used by everyone. I can use your definition when talking to people who use that one, but if I'm talking to those who don't, I may use cisgender male or biological male if it's important to differentiate them from trans males. 20 hours ago, User said: 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. I didn't invent any new words here, I'm just recognizing, and sometimes using, words that have been invented by others. All words were invented at some point. I just like to keep up with the times. 20 hours ago, User said: 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%. No, I'm simply recognizing the fact that different people have different definitions for words like male and female and I'm alright with using words like cisgender or biological to differentiate between different types of males and females when using the new definitions of males and females that have been created. As I've said before, words can meaning anything a group of people wish them to mean. Obviously, it can be hard when different groups fight for what a word means, but fortunately, we can placate both sides to some extent by using the definition they're comfortable with if we're only talking to one side. Things get more complicated when trying to talk to both sides at once. 20 hours ago, User said: 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. Again, it all comes down to trying to be specific. Since the term female now has different meanings, if I want to be specific as to what -kind- of female I'm referring to, I may say trans female or biological/cisgender female. Conversely, if I'm talking to a crowd that I know defines women as biological women, I can say transwoman to make it clear that I'm not talking about a biological woman. 20 hours ago, User said: What if that transwoman now wants to identify as a biological female? I'm a very firm believer that regardless of how we define what a female or a woman is, there -must- be a way to differentiate between biological/cisgender women. If a man wants to have kids that are biologically related to him, he would need to be with a biological woman and get her pregnant. A transwoman simply can't get pregnant. So if someone is trying to take away the ability the differentiate between trans and biological people, I'd be firmly against it. Edited November 4, 2024 by phoenyx75 Quote
Scott75 Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 21 hours ago, User said: On 11/1/2024 at 6:57 PM, phoenyx75 said: You keep on seeming to think that this is somehow about me. No, it is about your bad arguments. Pfft -.- But better than it being about me anyway. 21 hours ago, User said: On 11/1/2024 at 6:57 PM, phoenyx75 said: Secondly, people have been modifying their definition of terms like male and female for some time now. 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. In truth, this is about definitions, old ones vs. new ones. You simply don't like the new definitions that a growing number of people are using for terms like gender, male and female. It reminds me of a line from one of Frank Herbert's books: "Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future." Quote
Scott75 Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 21 hours ago, User said: On 11/1/2024 at 10:15 PM, phoenyx75 said: On 10/31/2024 at 9:14 AM, User said: Words can mean whatever we want them too! 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. No, that's not true. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't people who want to cram x or y definition down people's throats, whether it's the old definitions or the new ones. I, on the other hand, am trying to -persuade- people that the new definitions are good. As I've pointed out, I can use the old definitions if I know I'm talking to people who prefer them, but the same goes for the new definitions. Quote
Scott75 Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 (edited) 22 hours ago, User said: On 11/2/2024 at 2:52 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. I can certainly agree that just because a sizeable group of people define something a certain way doesn't mean it is right, accurate or make any sense. I think a good example is how Nazis defined jewish people. That being said, in this particular case, I think that defining males and females as people who identify as such is fine. This doesn't mean that we can't -also- define males and females as biological males and females, but I think we can agree that having 2 definitions for the same common words can get confusing. So I think it'd be better if we ultimately settled on just one, and I think you can figure out which one I prefer. But it's ultimately up to nations to decide on how words are defined, particularly when it comes to official matters such as the law and workplace terminology. Edited November 4, 2024 by phoenyx75 Quote
Scott75 Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 21 hours ago, User said: On 11/2/2024 at 2:57 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. Not with the word alone, but certainly with the word as part of its definition, yes. It reminds me of GNU: ** GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix!",[6][12] chosen because GNU's design is Unix-like, but differs from Unix by being free software and containing no Unix code.[6][13][14] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU Quote
Scott75 Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 22 hours ago, User said: On 11/2/2024 at 3:10 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. Again, for people who define male and female as people who identify as such, trans males are males and trans females are females. For someone who doesn't like the idea of having definitions "crammed down your throat" as you put it, you certainly seem to be wanting to do a fair amount of cramming yourself. You need to learn to accept that some people want to define these words differently then you do and stop trying to force them to define these words the way you define them. Quote
User Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said: As you know, the term male has more than one definition. I know the definition you're using, but it's not a definition used by everyone. I can use your definition when talking to people who use that one, but if I'm talking to those who don't, I may use cisgender male or biological male if it's important to differentiate them from trans males. Once again, yours is a circular argument. Just because you and others are dishonestly trying to pervert the meaning of this word to something nonsensical doesn't make it so. The fact that you have to add biological to it only proves my point. 1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said: I didn't invent any new words here, I'm just recognizing, and sometimes using, words that have been invented by others. All words were invented at some point. I just like to keep up with the times. Same difference, you are here embracing "cisgender" and you ignored the modifier of biological and the point being made here. That the fact is, that you must use new terms and add modifiers to existing terms proves how nonsensical your definition of male and female is now. 1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said: As I've said before, words can meaning anything a group of people wish them to mean. I ask you again, why do you keep admitting that you are a pedophile? 1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said: No, I'm simply recognizing the fact that No, you are here arguing we should use these new nonsensical definitions, you are not merely a victim going along with it, trying to explain it to us. You are advocating for it. And once again, you completely ignored the point I was making for how absurd this is. 1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said: Again, it all comes down to trying to be specific. Since the term female now has different meanings, if I want to be specific as to what -kind- of female I'm referring to, I may say trans female or biological/cisgender female. Conversely, if I'm talking to a crowd that I know defines women as biological women, I can say transwoman to make it clear that I'm not talking about a biological woman. The term female doesn't have different meanings. The meaning you offered is nonsensical gibberish. You defined the term with the term. There is no such thing as what kind of female. Again, the entire point I was making here is that transwomen want to be called female to fit in and because they believe they are female... but when you then turn around and have to define real females as something else... it defeats the point. 1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said: So if someone is trying to take away the ability the differentiate between trans and biological people, I'd be firmly against it. So... again, what is the point of placating transpeople by calling them something they are not, changing the meaning of male and female? Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
Scott75 Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 22 hours ago, User said: On 11/2/2024 at 7:01 PM, 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. Actually, it's both: ** Sex assignment (also known as gender assignment[1][2]) is the discernment of an infant's sex, typically made at birth based on an examination of the baby's external genitalia by a healthcare provider such as a midwife, nurse, or physician.[3] In the vast majority of cases (99.95%), sex is assigned unambiguously at birth. However, in about 1 in 2000 births, the baby's genitalia may not clearly indicate male or female, necessitating additional diagnostic steps, and deferring sex assignment.[4][5] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment Quote
Scott75 Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 22 hours ago, User said: On 11/2/2024 at 7:11 PM, 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? This goes back to my belief that there should be a way to differentiate between cisgender and transgender people. Since many people now include transgender people as the gender they identify with, another word other than a person's gender is needed to differentiate between them. cis and trans can work, such as cisgender and transgender. Biological can work to identify people who biologically the same gender as the one they identify with. Quote
Deluge Posted November 4, 2024 Author Report Posted November 4, 2024 On 11/2/2024 at 4:13 PM, phoenyx75 said: 1. Already did, which I suspect you know, but we're responding to previous versions of our conversation so it can't be helped. That being said, I think getting into it again is useful here for a specific reason, so here goes: ** "Gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda" is a pejorative[1][2] term used by sectors of the Christian religious right as a disparaging way to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual sexual orientations and relationships. The term originated among social conservatives in the United States and has been adopted in nations with active anti-LGBT movements such as Hungary and Uganda. The term refers to efforts to change government policies and laws on LGBT rights–related issues. Additionally, it has been used by social conservatives and others to describe alleged goals of LGBT rights activists, such as recruiting heterosexuals into what conservatives term a "homosexual lifestyle". ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_agenda 2. How does the the homosexual/gay agenda have anything to do with transexual behavior? 1. That source is trash, so we'd better get to the correct source: The Homosexual Agenda is a self-centered set of beliefs and objectives designed to mandate approval of homosexuality and its ideology. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for homosexuals and self-described "LGBTQ people" that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see hate speech, hate crimes).[1] The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the rights of free speech and religious freedom today.[2][3][4] https://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda 2. Because transexual behavior also belongs under the LGBT umbrella. Trannies, homos, and lesbians are all part of the LGBT community. And I suspect most, if not all, trannies are part of the transgender agenda. Quote
Deluge Posted November 4, 2024 Author Report Posted November 4, 2024 On 11/2/2024 at 4:15 PM, phoenyx75 said: I suspect the real reason you think I'm being dishonest is because I'm disagreeing with you on one or more points. Not true. It's because you are trying to normalize abnormal behavior. You're trying to make concessions for the trans agenda even while you say you disagree with part of it. You either support the trans agenda, or you don't. There is no middle ground on this. Quote
Deluge Posted November 4, 2024 Author Report Posted November 4, 2024 On 11/2/2024 at 4:27 PM, phoenyx75 said: If it were so simple, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It's simple for people who aren't lying to themselves. You are lying to yourself which is why we are having this conversation. Quote
User Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said: In truth, this is about definitions, old ones vs. new ones. You simply don't like the new definitions that a growing number of people are using for terms like gender, male and female. It reminds me of a line from one of Frank Herbert's books: "Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future." No, this is about appeasing the delusions of people who believe they are something they are not. I don't like the "new definitions" anymore than you like it when I keep asking you why you are admitting to being a pedophile. Words have meanings, you are trying to pervert them to embrace something that is fundamentally not true. Men can't be women. Men who think they are women and want to be called women, are not women. Changing the definitions doesn't make that true. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
User Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said: Actually, it's both: Actually, it is not. Quoting Wikipedia is not an argument or a rebuttal to what I just said. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
Deluge Posted November 4, 2024 Author Report Posted November 4, 2024 On 11/2/2024 at 6:48 PM, phoenyx75 said: 1. Based on my research, it appears the term they use when determining what they are biologically is transgender, followed by male/female/man/woman/etc. 2. As noted elsewhere, if it's important for some reason to know a person's sex assigned at birth, a transgender person (or someone who knows their biological gender) can simply say they are transgender. 1. Biology stipulates that there are two sexes and that's it. Your research is biased. Trust in biology, not mental illness. 2. The term "Sex assignment" is politicized bullshit. It's best to stick with biological fact: If you're born with a penis, you're a boy. If you're born with a vagina, you're a girl. Quote
User Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said: This goes back to my belief that there should be a way to differentiate between cisgender and transgender people. We have that, they are called transgender. I don't need a made-up word to identify myself as; I already had one. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
Deluge Posted November 4, 2024 Author Report Posted November 4, 2024 On 11/2/2024 at 6:54 PM, phoenyx75 said: What do you think I'm wrong about? I wasn't familiar with the term cultural marxism, so I decided to look it up. Here's what I got from Wikipedia: ** "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents Western Marxism (especially the Frankfurt School) as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. The conspiracy theory posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the supposed Christian values[note 1] of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values.[1][2][3][4][5] A contemporary revival of the Nazi propaganda term "Cultural Bolshevism", the contemporary version of the conspiracy theory originated in the United States during the 1990s.[6][1][7][note 2] Originally found only on the far-right political fringe, the term began to enter mainstream discourse in the 2010s and is now found globally.[7] The conspiracy theory of a Marxist culture war is promoted by right-wing politicians, fundamentalist religious leaders, political commentators in mainstream print and television media, and white supremacist terrorists,[8] and has been described as "a foundational element of the alt-right worldview".[9] Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact.[7][5][10] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory So I guess this is your type of thing? Wikipedia is trash. It's better to use this source: Cultural Marxism is a branch of Marxist ideology formulated by the Frankfurt School, which had its origins the early part of the twentieth century. Cultural Marxism comprises much of the foundation of political correctness and wokeism. It emerged as a response of European Marxist intellectuals disillusioned by the early political failures of conventional economic Marxist ideology.[1] Cultural Marxism was also opposed to Soviet Communism.[2] The central idea of Cultural Marxism is to soften up and prepare Western Civilization for economic Marxism after a gradual, relentless, sustained attack on every institution of Western culture,[3] including schools,[4] literature, art, film, the Judeo-Christian worldview, tradition, marriage and the family,[5] sexual mores, national sovereignty, etc.[6] The attacks are usually framed in Marxist terms as a class struggle between oppressors and oppressed; the members of the latter class allegedly include women, minorities, homosexuals, and adherents of non-Western ideologies such as Islam. Cultural Marxism has been described as "the cultural branch of globalism."[7] While Marx's Communist Manifesto focused on the alleged class struggle between bourgeois (owners of the means of production) and proletariat (workers), Marx did address culture, which he intimated would change after his economic vision was implemented. Patrick Buchanan argues that Cultural Marxism succeeded where Marx failed.[8] Marxism has permeated the American Left.[9] Among cultural Marxists, the book Dialectic of Enlightenment is considered to be a central text.[10][11] An effective way for cultural Marxists to influence the culture is to infiltrate schools and indoctrinate students, which the Democratic Socialists of America explicitly endorsed in 2018.[12] https://www.conservapedia.com/Cultural_Marxism Quote
Deluge Posted November 4, 2024 Author Report Posted November 4, 2024 (edited) 19 hours ago, phoenyx75 said: Again, it depends on how a given person defines the words man and woman. Only if you want to help someone fuel his fantasy. In the REAL world, we go by biological sex. The person is either a man or a woman. Edited November 4, 2024 by Deluge 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted November 4, 2024 Report Posted November 4, 2024 3 hours ago, phoenyx75 said: As you know, the term male has more than one definition. It absolutely does not. male /māl/ adjective of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. "male children" There you go. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.