Are you a man or a woman?

[Scott75]

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

Male and female have a specific meaning.

Almost right. They have specific meanings, plural. Here's Wikipedia's introduction to the term female:

**

In species that have males and females, sex-determination may be based on either sex chromosomes, or environmental conditions. Most female mammals, including female humans, have two X chromosomes. Characteristics of organisms with a female sex vary between different species, having different female reproductive systems, with some species showing characteristics secondary to the reproductive system, as with mammary glands in mammals.

In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender in the social sense of gender role or gender identity.^[5][6]

**

Source:

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

[CdnFox]

Just now, phoenyx75 said:

Almost right. They have specific meanings, plural.

Nope. Remember I get to set my own definitions for the words as for your rules. Male and female have one meaning

Edited November 9, 2024 by CdnFox

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:08 AM, CdnFox said:

On 11/7/2024 at 2:40 AM, 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?"

Thus it is with words. There's the clout to get a word into the slang of an area and even more clout if you can get it into Wikipedia and dictionaries. Now, that doesn't mean that morality and other niceties can't be part of it, but the most important thing is the clout.

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

That is morally bankrupt.

I think you meant to say "So then your argument is that the person that has the strongest position gets to make the definition" rather than what your first sentence above actually said. Assuming this is the case, no, that's not my argument. Anyone can define a word however they like, but if they don't have "agreement and a tradition on which to build", as Frank Herbert puts it in another Dune line, it generally won't do very well in conversations.

If a group of people can get a word into a dictionary or other well known reference, such as Wikipedia, however, that I would consider to be a hallmark of success into what we could perhaps call a word definition going mainstream.

Note that morality has nothing to do with it. You actually brought up a good example, the term f@ggot. While one of its definitions is simply a bundle of sticks, the other definition is, as The Century Dictionary puts it, "Slang, disparaging a male homosexual; -- always used disparagingly and considered offensive."

Now I think we can agree that people should avoid using such a word on someone who is gay, but that doesn't change the fact that it made it into a dictionary. 

Edited November 9, 2024 by phoenyx75

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, phoenyx75 said:

I think you meant to say "So then your argument is that.." rather than what you said at the beginning of your first sentence above. Assuming this is the case, no, that's not my argument. Anyone can define a word however they like, but if they don't have "agreement and a tradition on which to build", as Frank Herbert puts it in another Dune line, it generally won't do very well in conversations.

 

But you insist that they will.

You are totally flip-flopping between words being malleable and words not being valuable and it's just childish.

And for god's sake read another book besides the dune series. I liked Frank Herbert before it was popular to like Frank Herbert but enough is enough, every one of your quotes comes from that series.

It's kind of too late to be taken seriously around here. You've made a series of ridiculous statements that you don't seem to be able to defend and you're not taking anything anybody says seriously. You dodged the issue or you change the subject or you blame Frank Herbert

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:08 AM, CdnFox said:

Language only works when there is a consensus.

Where did you get that idea? I imagine young people have been making up new definitions for words as well as making brand new ones since words were invented. Similarly, I imagine that older people have frequently resisted these changes and new words since young people started doing this. I'm not saying that new definitions and brand new words are exclusively created by young people, but I think they're the main source. Similarly, I think that older people are generally the main source of resistance to new definitions to words as well as entirely new words.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

Where did you get that idea? 

From reason and common sense as well as practical experience. And if you were old enough to be out of your mommy's basement you would already know this. It's one of the first things they teach even in elementary college courses on logic and reason. There can be no rational conversation or discussion without agreement as to the definition of words.

Edited November 9, 2024 by CdnFox

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:20 AM, CdnFox said:

On 11/7/2024 at 7:12 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/6/2024 at 5:57 PM, CdnFox said:

I'll do it for you. Is the promotion of rights that are seen to be beneficial to the transgender people to the exclusion of and erosion of the rights of other people. Other people must be repressed and made to obey whatever transgender activists state should be or else face dire consequences.

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

Do you have any evidence that this alleged agenda actually exists?

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:20 AM, CdnFox said:

On 11/7/2024 at 7:12 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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.

Can you provide an example where you think this is the case?

On 11/7/2024 at 11:20 AM, CdnFox said:

Further you often skip over or ignore points made and simply pretend that they weren't made or didn't exist.

Again, can you provide an example where you believe I've done this?

On 11/7/2024 at 11:20 AM, CdnFox said:

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

Again, can you name an example where you believe I have done this?

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:20 AM, CdnFox said:

On 11/7/2024 at 7:12 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

In your last sentence above, did you mean to say 'I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you believe in the more radical trans movement and have an agenda of your own'?

Edited November 9, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:20 AM, CdnFox said:

On 11/7/2024 at 7:12 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

From you

I've actually voiced my disagreements with some positions that other trans people and their supporters have had. Perhaps most notably, I'm currently against minors getting hormones/hormone blockers and surgery. Secondly, I believe that many trans people and their supporters squandered a great opportunity for dialogue when JK Rowling took issue with the title of an article. Fortunately, JK Rowling herself took it upon herself to discuss her views in more detail. An article on JK Rowling's now famous tweet that started this:

A Complete Breakdown of the J.K. Rowling Transgender-Comments Controversy | Glamour

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:20 AM, CdnFox said:

On 11/7/2024 at 7:12 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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:

https://rumble.com/v2rpv4w-what-is-a-woman-matt-walsh-full-documentary.html

Take a look at the testimony of a trans man, starting at around 55 minutes and 30 seconds.

I have never said that all trans people see things the same way.

True. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't implying it.

On 11/7/2024 at 11:20 AM, CdnFox said:

I'm talking about you in this case, and I have mentioned transactivists.

Alright, thanks for clarifying.

On 11/7/2024 at 11:20 AM, CdnFox said:

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.

I suspect you've forgotten that I was asking -you- if you believed that all trans people saw things the same way. I've certainly never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself.

On 11/7/2024 at 11:20 AM, CdnFox said:

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.

What I was -actually- trying to do was understand your positions. I think I have a better take on them now.

 

 

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

True. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't implying it.

Alright, thanks for clarifying.

I suspect you've forgotten that I was asking -you- if you believed that all trans people saw things the same way. I've certainly never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself.

What I was -actually- trying to do was understand your positions. I think I have a better take on them now.

 

 

I haven't read any of the other posts that you made to me in the last few minutes. It doesn't seem to be productive. But it's worth taking at least one of them and pointing out what a dishonest discussion this is. The post I'm replying to here brings nothing to the table. I answered your questions and you put nothing forward. You just simply say oh okay I was just trying to make sure. So you never had a point

You literally spent a whole post saying absolutely nothing. If you hadn't made that post I know everything I already know about your argument, everything that I need to know about you I would already know. If you hadn't made that post there's nothing that I would be missing in the way of knowledge that I got from that post. It was utterly superfluous

And that seems to be your style of debate. You bring absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Like I said earlier, these cheap tricks might work great at recess on the playground but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to impress anybody with that kind of low level low effort nonsense

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:26 AM, User said:

On 11/7/2024 at 5:31 AM, 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. 

There is, you just refuse to acknowledge it. I've already mentioned what the problem is above.

On 11/7/2024 at 11:26 AM, User said:

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. 

First of all, I strongly suspect that your "99%" number is made up, but if it's not, by all means point to a reputable source for it. Secondly, cisgender is not the only term that can be used to describe a biological male/female that identifies as a male/female. It's just shorter. For those who have a strong dislike for the term cisgender, going for the much longer versions, such as "a biological male who identifies as a male" can work too. 

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:30 AM, CdnFox said:

On 11/7/2024 at 7:30 AM, 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  

I'm -guessing- that the "condescending and insulting comment" you're referring to is Frank Herbert's line on conservatives. For those who missed it, it was this: "Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future."

You responded with one on liberals that was a lot thornier, which is why I put in the "that escalated quickly" meme, but that's as far as that went. As I pointed out, I don't identify as a liberal and don't think I ever have. Currently, I'm going with realist. 

As to your bit about my reading, I've read quite a lot more than the Dune series of books. It's just that Frank Herbert has a fair amount of good lines that I like to quote. I've quoted other authors as well, just not in this thread.

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:44 AM, User said:

On 11/7/2024 at 5:38 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/6/2024 at 11:52 AM, User said:

What I say is backed up by logic, observation, and reason.

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.

I simply said that anyone can say that what they say is "backed up by logic, observation and reason". What's a lot harder to do is provide evidence for assertions of this nature.

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:44 AM, User said:

On 11/7/2024 at 5:38 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/6/2024 at 11:52 AM, User said:

You are born a male or female, a doctor is not "assigning" that gender to you at birth, it is an observation of what you are.

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:

**

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]

In most countries the healthcare provider's determination, along with other details of the birth, is by law recorded on an official document and submitted to the government for later issuance of a birth certificate and for other legal purposes.^[6]

The prevalence of intersex conditions, where a baby's sex characteristics do not conform strictly to typical definitions of male or female, ranges between 0.018% and 1.7%.^[7][8][9] While some intersex conditions result in genital ambiguity (approximately 0.02% to 0.05% of births^[4]), others present genitalia that are distinctly male or female, which may delay the recognition of an intersex condition until later in life.^[10][11]

**

Source:

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

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

I just did, complete with long quote and reference link. It's you that rarely provides evidence for your claims.

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:52 AM, User said:

On 11/7/2024 at 6:43 AM, phoenyx75 said:

The problem arises

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

No, the problem has been around for quite some time. The fact that you just quoted me saying "The problem arises" rather than the whole sentence it came from, let alone the whole paragraph, strongly suggests that deep down, you know full well what the problem is, you just don't want to admit it exists. That's your choice to make, but it doesn't remove the problem.

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:50 AM, User said:

On 11/7/2024 at 5:45 AM, phoenyx75 said:

That you have. Now, if they were -only- my definitions for these terms, that'd probably be the end of it. They're not though. In fact, I didn't even come up with them. More importantly, prominent sources of information now include these definitions. 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.

I still think that you're doing both, but it's nice that you're currently acknowledging the fact that there is more than one definition for terms like gender, male, female, etc.

As to your assertion that some of these definitions are nonsensical, you can explain your reasoning if you like.

On 11/7/2024 at 11:50 AM, User said:

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

I'm certainly voicing my belief that I believe that the new definitions for gender, male, female, etc. are good ones. I clearly don't agree with you that my arguments are "awful...nonsensical gibberish". Again, if you want to explain your reasoning as to why you believe these things, by all means.

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:50 AM, User said:

On 11/7/2024 at 5:49 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/6/2024 at 11:54 AM, User said:

On 11/6/2024 at 6:41 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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.

They don't. They have one definition

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. 

What you have is an inability to realize that you keep flip flopping on whether or not terms like gender have more than a single definition. I'm sure you'll figure it out at some point, but until you do, it's pretty hard to debate with you whether there -should- be more than one defition of these terms.

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:50 AM, User said:

On 11/7/2024 at 5:55 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/6/2024 at 12:01 PM, User said:

On 11/6/2024 at 6:36 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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.

This is not the kind of different meaning you were arguing the term has. 

All this is saying is that the term female can relate to talking about sex or gender, but they are still the same thing, as it says female is belonging to being a woman or a girl. Which... you must be female to be a woman or girl or to have the sex of female you are a woman or a girl. 

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

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

The point is that even the Cambridge dictionary is now using the word trans in conjunction with terms like female. They even make a distinction between female as a gender and female as a sex. For those that'd like to see me quoting the cambridge dictionary, as well as a link to their page, it's all in my post #274. You may not like the fact that female as a gender now includes trans females, but it's something that has now made it to a well known dictionary, so it's pretty hard to deny. What you're left with is saying that it is "nonsensical", "gibberish", etc., but I personally disagree with all of these assertions you've made and think that Cambridge made the right decision. 

[User]

51 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

No, the problem has been around for quite some time. The fact that you just quoted me saying "The problem arises" rather than the whole sentence it came from, let alone the whole paragraph, strongly suggests that deep down, you know full well what the problem is, you just don't want to admit it exists. That's your choice to make, but it doesn't remove the problem.

No, I am pointing out that you are the one creating this problem. Its just a big circular argument you are engaged in now. 

56 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

I just did, complete with long quote and reference link. It's you that rarely provides evidence for your claims.

No, quoting wikipedia is not an argument. It is not evidence. You refuse to actually respond to what I say because you can't. 

 

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

I simply said that anyone can say that what they say is "backed up by logic, observation and reason". What's a lot harder to do is provide evidence for assertions of this nature.

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

[User]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

There is, you just refuse to acknowledge it. I've already mentioned what the problem is above.

No, you are the one here making a problem. 

 

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

First of all, I strongly suspect that your "99%" number is made up, but if it's not, by all means point to a reputable source for it. Secondly, cisgender is not the only term that can be used to describe a biological male/female that identifies as a male/female. It's just shorter. For those who have a strong dislike for the term cisgender, going for the much longer versions, such as "a biological male who identifies as a male" can work too. 

OK, what percentage do you think the trans people make up of the population?

No, what works is just calling men males and women females. 

You are making this more complicated. 

[User]

22 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

What you have is an inability to realize that you keep flip flopping on whether or not terms like gender have more than a single definition. I'm sure you'll figure it out at some point, but until you do, it's pretty hard to debate with you whether there -should- be more than one defition of these terms.

I have not flip-flopped on anything. 

You can't even defend the lousy definition of the terms you want to use. You define the terms with the term. It is nonsensical gibberish. 

[User]

31 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

I still think that you're doing both, but it's nice that you're currently acknowledging the fact that there is more than one definition for terms like gender, male, female, etc.

As to your assertion that some of these definitions are nonsensical, you can explain your reasoning if you like.

No, while I acknowledge the existence of your attempt to define these words in a nonsensical way, I do not accept that there is, in fact, another legitimate definition. 

I have repeatedly explained my position here, you defined the terms with the term. It is nonsensical gibberish. 

33 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

I'm certainly voicing my belief that I believe that the new definitions for gender, male, female, etc. are good ones. I clearly don't agree with you that my arguments are "awful...nonsensical gibberish". Again, if you want to explain your reasoning as to why you believe these things, by all means.

You certainly assert they are "good" but have no ability to argue that. 

 

[User]

26 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

The point is that even the Cambridge dictionary is now using the word trans in conjunction with terms like female. They even make a distinction between female as a gender and female as a sex. For those that'd like to see me quoting the cambridge dictionary, as well as a link to their page, it's all in my post #274. You may not like the fact that female as a gender now includes trans females, but it's something that has now made it to a well known dictionary, so it's pretty hard to deny. What you're left with is saying that it is "nonsensical", "gibberish", etc., but I personally disagree with all of these assertions you've made and think that Cambridge made the right decision. 

OK, great, even they are using the term in a political nonsensical way that has no real meaning now. 

If you are here trying to win a popularity contest, that doesn't support any actual argument you are making, which goes back to why I say I have logic, common sense, and reason on my side. 

You have lies and deceit. I will not reject truth and reality to placate the delusions of others.