Are you a man or a woman?

Deluge · November 4, 2024

On 11/3/2024 at 6:39 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

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

1. Then you weren't agreeing with me. lol

There's no such thing as "sex assigned at birth" in a sane and normal world. You're either a boy or a girl at birth and everyone sees it.

2. People need to be accepting without bending to the trans agenda, which is possible. The problem is that trans activists have gotten overly aggressive. They want more than just acceptance; they want full compliance with their agenda.

Edited November 4, 2024 by Deluge

Deluge · November 4, 2024

On 11/3/2024 at 6:29 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

2. No, my idea of acceptance entails accepting people for who they are.

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

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

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

1. Source provided. Go check there.

2. No, your idea of acceptance is whatever the left-wing tells you. A person is either a biological male, or biological female - there is no deviation from this.

3. And it doesn't get more specific than two choices: a biological male and biological female. You should practice what you preach.

4. It doesn't depend on the place it depends on right or wrong. Biological sex is right; gender confusion is wrong. It doesn't get more simple than that.

5. Trans people have been given way too much latitude, and that fantasy needs to be dialed way, WAY back. Probably to 1950's levels.

CdnFox · 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 already had one. Hetero and transgender. That's all you need.

The only possible reason that anyone could have for wanting the definition of the words in a discussion to be malleable is to be able to change their position at will and blame it on the word. That is dishonest debating and discussion.

We have perfectly good words. The fact that people like you want to change the meaning of the words whenever it suits you in order to be able to not be accountable for your arguments and to obfuscate the issue simply proves that the other side is dishonest and isn't looking for mutual understanding or a workable solution.

I mean seriously - how the hell can you agree on anything if you cant' agree on what words mean

Deluge · November 4, 2024

3 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

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.

The only "cramming" that's taking place here is your tranny activism. That's why it's best to keep things right, and as they've always been: you're either a biological male, or you're a biological female.

Scott75 · November 5, 2024

On 11/3/2024 at 12:04 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/3/2024 at 8:00 AM, phoenyx75 said:

We agree up to this point.

Always nice to start off on what we can agree on

This is true 🙂

On 11/3/2024 at 12:04 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/3/2024 at 8:00 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

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

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

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

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

What you said above made me smile. I recall a certain person saying that cisgender offended them. I can imagine reciting everything you just said to justify the term :-p. Anyway, the fundamental point remains the same- the definitions of terms like gender, male, female, etc. are being fought over in a way. Some people, such as myself, can juggle between the 2- that is, if I know that my audience is comprised of people who define gender as cisgender by default, I can simply say add trans when defining people who are not cisgender. If I know my audience has at least some people who define gender as a social construct, on the other hand, things become more complicated, and I will have to decide how to define my terms based on the various factors involved.

CdnFox · November 5, 2024

13 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

This is true 🙂

What you said above made me smile. I recall a certain person saying that cisgender offended them. I can imagine reciting everything you just said to justify the term :-p.

Except the part where it's true And that's where you fall flat on your face. It's an inaccurate made up term much like n@gger or chug or chink etc.

I suppose there's some truth to those terms, N@gger is based on 'negro' which is an accurate term. But they're invented pejoratives.

15 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

Anyway, the fundamental point remains the same- the definitions of terms like gender, male, female, etc. are being fought over in a way.

No, the fundimental point is that you prefer to insult people in pursuit of your agenda and create hostile wedges to separate people instead of looking for ways to bring people together.

I think I've gotten a little less tolerant of transgender people today reading your stuff. For a group of people who are hoping that society will set aside the truth and instead refer to them in the manner that they would prefer, it's absolutely mind-boggling that you would insist on referring to others in an inflammatory and insulting manner. And yet you justify this Behavior much like digits of old justified their hatreds of the blacks.

You insist that words have no set meaning which eliminates the possibility of communication or understanding. You appear to prefer hostility to resolution. You prefer insult to acceptance.

Sir. You are an absolutely terrible representative of the argument for tolerance towards transgender people. Your hypocrisy is insane.

Scott75 · November 5, 2024

On 11/3/2024 at 12:04 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/3/2024 at 9:13 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/2/2024 at 8:12 PM, CdnFox said:

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

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

But you need to make up your mind, because you're claiming it is. Your flip-flopping back and forth on this.

No, I'm not, but I can see how you could get that impression. The point I was making was rather subtle- essentially, that the term is currently -somewhat- malleable, but not -that- malleable. Put another way, it's not that gender means "something different to anyone", as you put it, but that there are currently 2 definitions put out by 2 different groups, both vying to win the definition war. I said as much in the text that followed the 2 lines of mine that you quoted:

**

Recently, there's been a type of battle between what we can call the old definition, that gender is tied to biology, and the new one that it is a social construct, as Wikipedia puts it. For now, both of these definitions exist and thus, it can be hard to know what a person means when they say they are male or female, because it depends on how they're defining their gender. That's why using terms like cis or biological are important if one wants to establish one's biological gender.

**

On 11/3/2024 at 12:04 PM, CdnFox said:

Either there is a common definition that we could all get behind or there isn't and then it shouldn't be considered as part of the discussion because terms that can't be just fine have no place in a discussion about people's rights.

As I pointed out about, there are -2- fairly common definitions put out by 2 different groups currently vying for supremacy. I'm not sure what you meant by "then it shouldn't be considered as part of the discussion because terms that can't be just fine have no place in a discussion about people's rights." If you could elaborate, would be appreciated.

On 11/3/2024 at 12:04 PM, CdnFox said:

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

Again, my point is subtle- it's not that -anyone- is definining what terms like gender mean. As I've said, there are only 2 common definitions, and they both have significant backing, an old one and a new one. I do believe that one of them will ultimately prevail, and I think you can guess which one I think it'll be, but until one prevails, we're essentially stuck with terms like gender, male, female, etc. that have become rather ambiguous and the only way to remove their ambiguity at this point is to precede them with other words, such as biological, cis or trans.

On 11/3/2024 at 12:04 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/3/2024 at 9:13 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

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

But that wasn't a good thing.

I agree with you regarding it being bad that there was once an increase in calling gay people the name you mentioned, but I also believe it's a good thing that people are increasingly defining gender as a social construct, while still leaving other words such as sex or cisgender/transgender to define people's biological gender.

Scott75 · November 5, 2024

On 11/3/2024 at 12:10 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/3/2024 at 8:45 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/2/2024 at 7:00 PM, CdnFox said:

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

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

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

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

It's not accurate.

I strongly disagree, but let's get into why you apparently think it's innacurate, continuing...

On 11/3/2024 at 12:10 PM, CdnFox said:

It's a made-up phrase that someone felt was appropriate.

All terms were once made up by someone who felt they were appropriate. Whether they stick depends on whether a significant amount of people agree that the new term is a good one and begin to use it themselves.

On 11/3/2024 at 12:10 PM, CdnFox said:

But the correct term for a male who is of a traditional sexual orientation is heterosexual.

The subject of this thread isn't a person's sexual attraction. It's about the definition of words such as gender, man, woman, etc.

On 11/3/2024 at 12:10 PM, CdnFox said:

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

You made a grammatical error in what you said above that makes me unsure as to what you meant. To clarify, are you trying to say "is an innacurate" or "is an accurate"?

On 11/3/2024 at 12:10 PM, CdnFox said:

Here's a few general rules. If a group never uses that term to refer to itself it's probably pejorative.

Makes sense. But people who are cisgender -do- use the term. I'm an example. I certainly don't use it -often-, in fact I think I used it rarely if ever before I waded into this thread (though I had certainly heard of it), but I've used it to describe myself and others who are biological males who identify as males.

On 11/3/2024 at 12:10 PM, CdnFox said:

If the people who actually use the term are using it in a negative and demeaning way it's probably pejorative.

I'd think you could take away the "probably" in that case. But as I've mentioned before, people can use all sorts of terms that are not regularly pejorative in a pejorative way. I mentioned that "white people" can be used pejoratively, for example, but that doesn't mean that calling people white is pejorative by default. Perhaps I should add that I myself am white.

On 11/3/2024 at 12:10 PM, CdnFox said:

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

Right.

On 11/3/2024 at 12:10 PM, CdnFox said:

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

I assume you're referring to terms like cisgender. Cisgender actually does have a history:

**

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

**

Source:

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

I find that it's a simple and accurate way to differentiate between biological genders and trans genders, which is why I brought it up in this thread.

Scott75 · November 5, 2024

On 11/3/2024 at 12:19 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/3/2024 at 9:20 AM, 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.

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.

You haven't presented any evidence that cis is a pejorative. As I tried to explain previously, a -lot- of terms can be used pejoratively, even if they aren't regularly seen this way.

Edited November 5, 2024 by phoenyx75

Scott75 · November 5, 2024

On 11/3/2024 at 12:19 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/3/2024 at 8:45 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

First of all, we weren't even talking about the gender a given person is sexually attracted to. The subject of this thread was whether posters here were "a man or a woman" and that tends to lead to a conversation on the definition of gender and the various gender words. A trans male could identify as a heterosexual male. If you don't care if the male identifying himself is trans or not, then that would be fine to establish both their gender and the gender they are sexually attracted to, but my guess is that you'd object.

On 11/3/2024 at 12:19 PM, CdnFox said:

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.

You mentioned previously that unless you're black and are using the term in an appropriate way, that term shouldn't be used, and I agree. The problem for your argument when it comes to the term cis is that you haven't provided any evidence that it is mainly used pejoratively.

Scott75 · November 5, 2024

On 11/3/2024 at 12:19 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/3/2024 at 9:20 AM, 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.

Everyone has a name. Most people want to be called their names. If you insisted on calling every woman you met Sue, I think we can agree that all the non Sues out there wouldn't be happy about it. Do these non Sues want to "compel" your speech? Or do they just want to addressed by their name?

As to your idea that cis is a pejorative, you still haven't provided any evidence for this.

On 11/3/2024 at 12:19 PM, CdnFox said:

They demand that they and their supporters should have access to children without the parents knowing.

I see from this point on, you start to use "they" a lot. Who is this "they" you keep on referring to? It reminds me of a joke from Gary Larson:

Scott75 · November 5, 2024

On 11/3/2024 at 7:30 PM, Nationalist said:

On 11/3/2024 at 6:12 PM, 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.

Indeed. Unfortunately, they have more then one, which has made the terms rather ambiguous when it comes to certain discussions, such as the one we're having in this thread.

On 11/3/2024 at 7:30 PM, Nationalist said:

But at least you don't advocate for the "gender affirming" bullshit on kids.

Not the kind that requires hormones/hormone blockers and surgery, no. But if a kid wants to identify as trans, I'm fine with that.

Scott75 · November 5, 2024

On 11/3/2024 at 11:13 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/3/2024 at 7:30 PM, Nationalist said:

Man and woman have definitions.

They do. And in fact so does gender.

I agree. The problem is they all have more than one definition.

On 11/3/2024 at 11:13 PM, CdnFox said:

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.

I personally don't like using the word sex to define a person's biological gender because sex clearly has other meanings. But if everyone could just agree that one's sex is one's biological gender, it would beat arguing endlessly over the definitions of gender and gender terms.

On 11/3/2024 at 11:13 PM, CdnFox said:

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

I agree that words need to have meaning, and I think we can agree that they do. The problem here is that there are different groups of people who have different meanings for gender and other gender terms. I think that arguing over what definition for a given word is best generally can't get us very far, but there are certainly a variety of ways to differentiate between people who are trans and people who aren't. As to the bit about who's talking, that one does apply, because different people have different definitions for gender and gender words.

Scott75 · November 5, 2024

21 hours ago, Nationalist said:

On 11/3/2024 at 11:13 PM, 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.

The definitions of gender fluidity and trans are quite different. Here's what gender fluidity means according to Wikipedia:

**

Gender fluidity (commonly referred to as genderfluid) is a non-fixed gender identity that shifts over time or depending on the situation. These fluctuations can occur at the level of gender identity or gender expression. A genderfluid person may fluctuate among different gender expressions over their lifetime, or express multiple aspects of various gender markers simultaneously.^[1]^[2] Genderfluid individuals may identify as non-binary or transgender, or cisgender (meaning they identify with the gender associated with their sex assigned at birth).^[3]^[4]

**

Source:

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

Edited November 5, 2024 by phoenyx75

Nationalist · November 5, 2024

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

The definitions of gender fluidity and trans are quite different. Here's what gender fluidity means according to Wikipedia:

**

Gender fluidity (commonly referred to as genderfluid) is a non-fixed gender identity that shifts over time or depending on the situation. These fluctuations can occur at the level of gender identity or gender expression. A genderfluid person may fluctuate among different gender expressions over their lifetime, or express multiple aspects of various gender markers simultaneously.^[1]^[2] Genderfluid individuals may identify as non-binary or transgender, or cisgender (meaning they identify with the gender associated with their sex assigned at birth).^[3]^[4]

**

Source:

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

LARPing. It's nothing to do with gender.

User · November 5, 2024

4 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

You haven't presented any evidence that cis is a pejorative. As I tried to explain previously, a -lot- of terms can be used pejoratively, even if they aren't regularly seen this way.

Do you think it is pejorative to call a transwoman, who is a man identifying as a woman, a man, or a male, even after they have asked you to refer to them as how they identify?

CdnFox · November 5, 2024

11 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

No, I'm not, but I can see how you could get that impression.

You absolutely are. Perhaps you don't realize it but you absolutely are doing that, that is the thing you are doing

And no, not all terms work caught up by somebody who felt they were appropriate. Most of all naturally over time and are not invented at all. And when they are invented they are usually invented to describe something that has not existed before so there is no opportunity for a natural development. And aside from marketing slogan inventions, even then the words tend to come from words in common use.

When somebody invents a brand new term for something that already exists and has plenty of its own terms that are widely in use they are either trying to sell something or they are being derogatory in the vast majority of cases. I don't see you trying to sell anything

Words have meaning. While languages do evolve over time they don't change at the whim of the person speaking.

CdnFox · November 5, 2024

8 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

I agree. The problem is they all have more than one definition.

There is not more than one definition. There is the definition which has been accepted for quite some time, and then there is the dishonest agenda by a group of individuals who require that the definition be changed regularly in order to justify their agenda.

That is not the same as there being more than one definition. That is mis-defining something to promote a dishonest argument that would not survive with the original definition.

To quote Orwell, it's Good speak rather than truth speak.

CdnFox · November 5, 2024

8 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

The definitions of gender fluidity and trans are quite different. Here's what gender fluidity means according to Wikipedia:

**

Gender fluidity (commonly referred to as genderfluid) is a non-fixed gender identity that shifts over time or depending on the situation. These fluctuations can occur at the level of gender identity or gender expression. A genderfluid person may fluctuate among different gender expressions over their lifetime, or express multiple aspects of various gender markers simultaneously.^[1]^[2] Genderfluid individuals may identify as non-binary or transgender, or cisgender (meaning they identify with the gender associated with their sex assigned at birth).^[3]^[4]

**

Source:

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

But what if he defines it as "An exercise in self delusion practiced by whiny little brats who can't cope with reality as they've discovered it and are seeking to demand the government wipe their butts so that they feel better"?

According to you seeing as anybody can define anything the way they want that's perfectly valid. The dictionary definition doesn't matter because there are multiple definitions of gender fluidity and that one is perfectly acceptable according to your rules

You see what happens when fools pretend that there are no definitions for words?

CdnFox · November 5, 2024

4 hours ago, User said:

8 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

You haven't presented any evidence that cis is a pejorative.

Now you're just getting into lying. It is very frequently used as a pejorative

Whereas you haven't provided any proof that a man is a woman. Yet strangely you insist that it would be appropriate not to claim otherwise if they wish.

You are quickly painting yourself into a logical corner on several fronts here. You very clearly want the world to be one way when discussing what you perceive to be your interests and you want it to be a very different way if anybody else wants to promote or suggest that their interests are important

That would make you a hypocrite

Scott75 · November 6, 2024

On 11/4/2024 at 9:02 AM, User said:

On 11/4/2024 at 7:06 AM, 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.

What you call 'perverting' is simply changing the original meaning of the word. The definitions of words change all the time and a good amount of people have decided that their meaning of gender now includes anyone who identifies with said gender. The fat that words such as biological or cis now need to be added to gender in order to differentiate between cis and transgender people just means that there are still situations where it's important to know the difference between these 2 types of people. Incidentally, I think cis is better for 2 reasons:

1- It's shorter.

2- It doesn't just say what a person's biological gender is, but also what gender they identify with.

Edited November 6, 2024 by phoenyx75

Scott75 · November 6, 2024

On 11/4/2024 at 9:02 AM, User said:

On 11/4/2024 at 7:06 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/3/2024 at 10:19 AM, 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.

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.

First of all, as I've said previously, cis is both shorter than biological and gives more information about a person. So you're right that I have embraced using the term cis, at least with people who also appreciate the word. For those who don't, I can use more and longer words to say the same thing. So, I could say "A biological man that identifies as a man" instead of just saying cisgender. Whatever floats your boat.

Secondly, you've still shown no evidence that there is anything "nonsensical" about the new definitions for gender terms such as male and female. I think it's clear that you and others don't like these new definitions, but there's a big difference between defining a word in a way that you don't like and a definition not making sense.

Scott75 · November 6, 2024

On 11/4/2024 at 9:02 AM, User said:

On 11/4/2024 at 7:06 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/3/2024 at 10:19 AM, 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.

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.

You make a good point. That being said, there are situations where I find it makes more sense to use the old definitions. As an English teacher of mine once said, it's important to know one's audience and tailor one's content for them appropriately.

Scott75 · November 6, 2024

On 11/4/2024 at 9:02 AM, User said:

On 11/4/2024 at 7:06 AM, 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.

It most definitely does. Here's the first definition from Cambridge's dictionary at dictionary.cambridge.org:

**

female

female adjective (GENDER)

belonging or relating to women or girls:

She was voted the best female vocalist.

She was the school's first trans female athlete.

**

Here's the second:

**

female adjective (SEX)

belonging or relating to the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs:

**

So, one definition for female as defined by gender and one definition for female as defined by sex.

Edited November 6, 2024 by phoenyx75

Scott75 · November 6, 2024

On 11/4/2024 at 9:02 AM, User said:

On 11/4/2024 at 7:06 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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.

So... again, what is the point of placating transpeople by calling them something they are not, changing the meaning of male and female?

You keep on denying the fact that terms such as male and female now have more than one definition. I've already shown you hard evidence of this. Once you accept this, we can talk about why you don't like it, but accepting the fact that these words have more than one meaning is the first step.