Are you a man or a woman?

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

Generally speaking, I don't go looking for the source material of people I debate with. By the same token, I don't ask people I debate with to look for my own source material. It's basically a rule of "do your own homework".

That's right, you should do your own homework. 

The problem with you is that you keep parroting the same shit after you've already been given an answer. 

I've already told you that Americans have spoken, and they're not interested in what you are peddling. 

There are two sexes: Biological male, and biological female, and the two sexes need to stay in their own spaces. Drag queen story hour is not appropriate for kids and should be against the law. Homosexual marriage is also not healthy for kids and adoption should be taken off the table. 

When a radical agenda comes up, like what you are trying to sell, it's best to use Occam's Razor: Two sexes, two bathrooms, end of story. 

Edited November 7, 2024 by Deluge

[Scott75]

34 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

16 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/4/2024 at 11:33 AM, Deluge said:

Source provided. Go check there.

Where?

Go find it, mr. super responder. It's in that pile of comments you've been piling up.  

Generally speaking, I don't go looking for the source material of people I debate with. By the same token, I don't ask people I debate with to look for my own source material. It's basically a rule of "do your own homework".

That's right, you should do your own homework. 

I have, which is why when I say source, it's almost always followed by a link, not a "go check there".

[Nationalist]

57 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

Do you think I'm opposing nature?

In a word...YES.

The denial of the basic and fundamental laws of nature is in opposition to nature.

[Deluge]

9 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

I have, which is why when I say source, it's almost always followed by a link, not a "go check there".

You've been given links. Why didn't you go through the sources and respond based on the sources? 

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

I think sometimes the problem is that you take a snippet of what I write and miss the larger context. I went back to my post #213, where I pointed out that the term gender is not -so- malleable. What I meant is that there are some pretty hard limits to how much a word can be shaped, especially ones which are in common usage such as gender and gender words such as male and female. Right after I pionted out that gender was not that malleable a word, I said the following:

**

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.

**

And who sets these limits.

Here's the deal. Language only works if both parties agree fully on what a word means. The speaker cannot independently define what the word means because if they do then there is no basis for communication

You claim you point things out and you've explained things but you haven't. What you're doing is arbitrarily attempting to define the rules by which language works and you simply are not qualified to do that on behalf of others.

So you think you're coming across as informative and polite but what you're really coming across is arrogant beyond belief and dismissive.

Male and female have a specific meaning. The meaning is well established. You do not arbitrarily get to announce that there is some sort of ongoing dispute about that. That is patently insane.

If there is any type of battle over what a word means that means that somebody is attempting to mis- define a word for a purpose, usually political.

Man and woman is well defined. Male and female are well defined. And that is true regardless of your personal agenda.

[User]

13 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Now, let's do a little thought experiment.

I have already addressed the absurdity of what you are trying to argue here. 

There is no need to play any of these games. Men are males, women are females. If someone is trans... they are trans. 

 

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Word definitions have some similarities to the law. Frank Herbert wrote a great line on the law in one of his Dune books:

"Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?"

 

So when you're argument the person that has the strongest position gets to make the definition.

That is morally bankrupt. And you appear to be getting your lessons on linguistics and cultural issues from a science fiction series. Science fiction is famous for raising interesting moral issues for discussion but it is not an effective textbook when it comes to our current reality.

Language is a communication between two people. If you are speaking french and I am speaking English you might very well know what all of the words you say mean to you but it is absolutely gibberish to me and there is no basis of communication. Likewise if I speak English back you would have no idea of what I was saying.

Language only works when there is a consensus. There are established meanings for these words and you cannot arbitrarily change them just because it suits your political agenda

4 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

I said -we- can define words however we want. Naturally, this works best where everyone agrees on the definition of a word.

It ONLY works where people agree on the definition. 

That's it. Otherwise you're simply talking about propaganda.

We have well established meanings for these words. You wish to misdefine the words for political reasons to promote an agenda. That is propaganda it is not discussion

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

That's quite the draconian vision you have of this alleged trans agenda -.- Thanks for sharing though. Now I at least know what you think this alleged trans agenda is.

It may be a Draconian agenda, but it is certainly not a Draconian vision of one. It is demonstrably true and empirically true. Trans people in this day and age are demanding that other people surrender their rights and that their rights become subservient to the proposed trans rights

.

Quote

That's certainly a very distorted view of me, but again, thanks for sharing. Some questions for you:

I'm sure you think so but I doubt it. If others perceive you that way there is a reason and that reason is probably how you're presenting yourself. There's an old saying, if a thousand people think you're a jerk it doesn't matter if you think they're wrong. 

Quote

1- Why do you think I have "zero respect for anybody else"?

The ideology behind your responses is indicative of that. You have no interest in considering other people's position you only wish to consider your own. Further you often skip over or ignore points made and simply pretend that they weren't made or didn't exist. Additionally despite the fact that numerous Rights that are in conflict with some of the issues you raised have been brought forward, you refuse to even acknowledge them as being valid or rights that should be considered. Basically if it doesn't suit the agenda you're pushing you're not interested

 

Quote

2- Am I part of your alleged "trans agenda"?

The trans agenda isn't some sort of thing. It's not an organization. You can't email it. It's not a building or the like. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you The leave in the more radical trans movement and have an agenda of your own

Quote

3- Do you have any evidence for your assertions?

Of course, and in fact I've already presented some but you skip over that because you can't see or think about anything but doesn't fit your talking points and your echo chamber beliefs.

Quote

4- Where did you get this notion that I think that "everything the trans people do is right and correct"?

From you

Quote

5- Are you even aware that not all trans people see things the same way? Take a look at Matt Walsh's "What is a woman?" documentary if you don't believe me. Matt Walsh is quite conservative, trust me. His documentary can be seen here:

I have never said that all trans people see things the same way. I'm talking about you in this case, and I have mentioned transactivists. I'm well aware that people like you and some trans activists hijack the trans people out there and profess to speak on their behalf or to their benefit when you have no such mandate to do so for various reasons. 

But of course, you don't want any criticism level that you specifically so you're trying to twist what I said from being a commentary about you specifically and some trans activists specifically into a comment about trans people in general.

That is dishonest.

 

[User]

5 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Again, the problem is that there's a fair amount of people who now define male as anyone who identifies as male and female as anyone who identifies as female. Given this reality, as well as the reality that it is at times a good thing to be able to differentiate between cisgenders and transgenders, adding cis and trans to male and female solves the problem quite well.

There is no problem. 

You want to create a problem for the 99% of people who have no interest in being called cisgender by labeling them as such, so you can cater to the 1% of people. 

You are creating the problem here. 

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

For the record, I've never really considered myself a liberal, at least not in the way I understand the term. I consider myself more of a realist. 

I've liked terms like progressive in the past, but some politicians labelled as progressives have let me down sometimes.

You make a condescending and insulting comment from what I can only assume is the one book series in the universe you've ever read because you keep coming back to it And when someone comments back with a common phrase that's similar  in reply you think there's been an escalation  

[User]

6 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Anyone can say that. The hard part is showing that prominent sources agree with your logic, observation and reason. That's where you fail on this subject.

You can't argue against what I say, all you can do is play this dishonest game of saying Wikipedia says something different. 

6 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

All I can do is point out what recognized sources of information have said about sex assignment. You're free to disagree all you like:

Then move along if you are unable to articulate any argument to back up your assertions here. 

 

[User]

6 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

So, you can continue to pretend that these definitions don't exist, or you can acknowledge the fact.

You can't even keep the terms of this discussion straight. 

The issue isn't their existence; it's that I reject them and their nonsensical definitions. 

The issue here is that you are pushing for their acceptance and use, making awful arguments that are nonsensical gibberish. 

 

 

6 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Back to denial again -.- Ah well, hopefully you'll come around one day.

Nope. I have truth, logic, common sense, and reason on my side. 

5 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Did you not notice the example given of the trans female athlete?

Feel free to explain what it is you think is relevant. 

[User]

5 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

The problem arises

There is no problem here, except the one you are creating. 

[User]

5 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

The same thing is done to define a democrat or a republican.

LOL, no. That is not accurate at all. A Democrat is defined as someone belonging to the Democratic party or a supporter of them. You can then further define what the Democratic party is. Same with Republican. 

The sad thing here is that you know what you are doing is fundamentally dishonest and you are just trying to come up with absurdly lame attempts to defend what you are doing. 

 

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 9:51 AM, Nationalist said:

On 11/7/2024 at 8:52 AM, phoenyx75 said:

Do you think I'm opposing nature?

In a word...YES.

The denial of the basic and fundamental laws of nature is in opposition to nature.

What "basic and fundamental laws of nature" do you think I'm opposing?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

What "basic and fundamental laws of nature" do you think I'm opposing?

You ask a lot of questions for a guy who never really seems to answer any

[Legato]

8 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

What "basic and fundamental laws of nature" do you think I'm opposing?

Go to your local zoo, find the Llama sanctuary, then come back and tell us which one is Transgender.

Pro Tip, it's not the one that spits.

[Deluge]

16 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

What "basic and fundamental laws of nature" do you think I'm opposing?

Nobody really cares, phoenix75, as you're a troll. 

[Nationalist]

26 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

What "basic and fundamental laws of nature" do you think I'm opposing?

Man and woman.

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 9:55 AM, Deluge said:

On 11/7/2024 at 9:43 AM, phoenyx75 said:

I have, which is why when I say source, it's almost always followed by a link, not a "go check there".

You've been given links. Why didn't you go through the sources and respond based on the sources? 

I believe I have, but if you believe there's a post where you believe I didn't respond properly to a source you or someone else gave me, by all means point it out.

[Deluge]

13 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

I believe I have, but if you believe there's a post where you believe I didn't respond properly to a source you or someone else gave me, by all means point it out.

No, I'm pretty sure you didn't, but that doesn't matter anymore.

The key now is to get the trannies, and all the other radical activists, back in their lane so America can recover from the woke infection. 

Edited November 8, 2024 by Deluge

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:01 AM, CdnFox said:

On 11/7/2024 at 2:26 AM, phoenyx75 said:

I think sometimes the problem is that you take a snippet of what I write and miss the larger context. I went back to my post #213, where I pointed out that the term gender is not -so- malleable. What I meant is that there are some pretty hard limits to how much a word can be shaped, especially ones which are in common usage such as gender and gender words such as male and female. Right after I pionted out that gender was not that malleable a word, I said the following:

**

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.

**

And who sets these limits.

In terms of words that have moved beyond merely being slang and only known to a relatively small subset of people (certain young people in a certain region, for instance), various institutions that we tend to turn to when we want to know how a word is defined, mainly dictionaries and other online sources of information such as Wikipedia.

On 11/7/2024 at 11:01 AM, CdnFox said:

Here's the deal. Language only works if both parties agree fully on what a word means. The speaker cannot independently define what the word means because if they do then there is no basis for communication

There's a lot to unpack in what you said. For starters, we have to think of what happens when 2 parties don't agree on something as important as what terms like gender, male and female mean. Now, the -easiest- solution is for the parties in question to simply not use the ambiguous words, but for various reasons, one or both parties may want to use said words even when talking to people who don't agree with their definitions. Best case scenario, they manage to handle things anyway. Medium case scenario, lawsuits, which I've covered before. Worst case scenario, there can be violence and even murders:

How the rise of anti-LGBTQ+ hate and violence is impacting the community | PBS

Quoting from the introduction to the video above:

**

The murders of several LGBTQ+ people and allies in recent weeks are raising alarm across the U.S. O’Shae Sibley was stabbed to death in Brooklyn after police said he confronted a group who made homophobic slurs and Laura Ann Carleton was killed in California for apparently refusing to remove a Pride flag from her store. Geoff Bennett discussed more with GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis.

**

Can we at least agree that what these anti-LGBTQ+ people did was terrible?

Incidentally, I made a thread in another forum here that touches on LGBTQ+ issues that you might find interesting. It can be seen here:

 

Edited November 8, 2024 by phoenyx75

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

In terms of words that have moved beyond merely being slang and only known to a relatively small subset of people (certain young people in a certain region, for instance), various institutions that we tend to turn to when we want to know how a word is defined, mainly dictionaries and other online sources of information such as Wikipedia.

There's a lot to unpack in what you said. For starters, we have to think of what happens when 2 parties don't agree on something as important as what terms like gender, male and female mean. Now, the -easiest- solution is for the parties in question to simply not use the ambiguous words, but for various reasons, one or both parties may want to use said words even when talking to people who don't agree with their definitions. Best case scenario, they manage to handle things anyway. Medium case scenario, lawsuits, which I've covered before. Worst case scenario, there can be violence and even murders:

How the rise of anti-LGBTQ+ hate and violence is impacting the community | PBS

Quoting from the introduction to the video above:

**

The murders of several LGBTQ+ people and allies in recent weeks are raising alarm across the U.S. O’Shae Sibley was stabbed to death in Brooklyn after police said he confronted a group who made homophobic slurs and Laura Ann Carleton was killed in California for apparently refusing to remove a Pride flag from her store. Geoff Bennett discussed more with GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis.

**

Can we at least agree that what these anti-LGBTQ+ people did was terrible?

Incidentally, I made a thread in another forum here that touches on LGBTQ+ issues that you might find interesting. It can be seen here:

 

Sorry but like many institutions the dictionary has become political.

And once again all you're doing is repeating yourself saying that words don't have meanings

You refuse to answer or address the actual issues from any of the posters that are being put to you. You are dishonest and disingenuous which means we can add you to the pile of other dishonest and disingenuous people that have come here attempting to sell the idea of trans rights etc

You have nothing to bring to this conversation. What you were staying is objectively false and the only reason you want it to be true is because you wish to promote a narrative rather than have a discussion

You should be deeply embarrassed by your efforts here. Next time you go somewhere new maybe start off with an honest discussion and no cheesy games at least until you've established that you're not a complete flake

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:01 AM, CdnFox said:

You claim you point things out and you've explained things but you haven't.

Perhaps, but you'll have to get into specific examples if you want to actually provide evidence for your claim. 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

Perhaps, but you'll have to get into specific examples if you want to actually provide evidence for your claim. 

No that's a little game that you're playing I've noticed and I'm really not interested in your childish games. You failed to answer questions and simply repeat that words are malleable, then when people challenge you on it you demand examples and dodge the question again. We have another poster here that's like that, he's not well respected by most.

I'm sure your little game slays them on the elementary playgrounds at recess. But it is painfully obvious that what you're doing is dodging the issues. A combination of bait and switch with sea lioning and fainting ignorance seems to be what you believe passes for intelligent conversation. And it doesn't.

You have not substantially addressed a single thing I posted. You try and skirt around it and deflect.

All you're proving is that an attempt to have a conversation with those on the left who support trans or gay activism in any way shape or form is pointless and they are dishonest speakers who do not want to engage in a rational conversation. Unless you're doing a false flag thing where you deliberately trying to turn people against the very people you say you want to support you should either come at this an entirely different way or F off. You are nowhere near intelligent enough for the crowd that you're talking to if all you're going to bring is games