Are you a man or a woman?

[Goddess]

Went to the theatre last night with a friend and we were looking at the pics and bios of the cast before it started.

I pointed one out and said to my friend, "Oh, I remember that guy!  He was in The Full Monty last year, remember?  He has a great voice."

A lady behind me scolded, "They use them/they pronouns."

Me:  Oh, OK. Sorry.  "Them. 🤔 Haves. 🤔 A great voice?"

Then to my friend, "Gawd, that sentence makes me sound like I don't know English. 🤣"

[Scott75]

12 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Went to the theatre last night with a friend and we were looking at the pics and bios of the cast before it started.

I pointed one out and said to my friend, "Oh, I remember that guy!  He was in The Full Monty last year, remember?  He has a great voice."

A lady behind me scolded, "They use them/they pronouns."

Me:  Oh, OK. Sorry.  "Them. 🤔 Haves. 🤔 A great voice?"

Then to my friend, "Gawd, that sentence makes me sound like I don't know English. 🤣"

I agree it definitely takes getting used to. I don't currently know anyone that goes by they/them, at least not to my knowledge, which makes things simpler. But I'm willing to sound a tad awkward if it makes them feel better. Definitely better then someone getting surgery just so that they look more like the pronoun they'd like people to use for them. The only caveat is that I -really- don't want to have to deal with people who change their pronouns on a regular basis. It's hard enough for me to remember to try to always give them a pronoun that doesn't fit what they look like biologically :-p. 

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I did briefly get to know a trans man who had gotten surgery and hormones to look more like a biological man. At first, he had me thinking he was a biological man until he told the men's group that he was a trans man. Some there already knew, so it wasn't like he took everyone by surprise. But once he mentioned he was trans, I did notice some body features that made it indeed seem that he had previously been a woman (and was ofcourse still biologically a woman). He only came a few times to the men's group before deciding it wasn't for him, but I found myself thinking about some of the things he said. And I fully admit that sometimes I'd think of he as she because of some of the features that that made him seem somewhat feminine, but I believe that while I was around him, I always used the pronoun he preferred.

Edited November 9, 2024 by phoenyx75
Added information

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

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

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. 

No, i'm saying your replies are dishonest in the extreme.   And posting 20 replies to someone is just plain bad antiquate so i can tell you're very young. Nith

You've got nothing to bring to the discussion at this time it would seem

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

I agree it definitely takes getting used to.

Or we just don't. We refuse to give in to the stupidity and we maintain the right to our language. Talking with you has convinced me that that's probably the better choice. Looks like you've convinced a few others too read through the comments

2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

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.

Oh you're guessing are you. What a lying little shit you are

And you insult somebody and come back complaining oh boohoo, you insulted me slightly more than I insulted you so life is unfair

You're an ignorant little brat. 

[Scott75]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:58 AM, User said:

On 11/7/2024 at 6:51 AM, phoenyx75 said:

The same thing is done to define a democrat or a republican. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't attempt to define democrats and republicans with other words, but then, you can do the same thing with males and females. Males generally have more masculine traits, females more female traits. If we're talking about biological males, this is obvious, but there are social traits too, like males tend to like sports more, for instance. An interesting case of a young transgender male who sued his school for not allowing him to be in the boy's locker room after engaging in sports with them:
Transgender Student’s Lawsuit Over Locker Room Access Costs District Millions | Athletic Business

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.

You can do all of these things with gender terms as social constructs. The bottom line is that democrats and republicans are social constructs as well, with no tie to biology.

On 11/7/2024 at 11:58 AM, User said:

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. 

Absolute balderdash and this just shows that you jump to false conclusions easily.

Edited November 10, 2024 by phoenyx75

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, phoenyx75 said:

You can do all of these things with gender terms as social constructs. The bottom line is that democrats and republicans are social constructs as well, with no tie to biology.

 

You suggesting that being gay is a choice or that transgender is a choice? That seems to be what you're suggesting there and that certainly would change the discussion. I think most gays would disagree with you though

[Scott75]

On 11/8/2024 at 11:34 AM, CdnFox said:

On 11/8/2024 at 11:32 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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?

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

I definitely ask a lot of questions. I think that's a good thing in a discussion. Admitting when you're not sure of something is generally an asset, as it prevents jumping to false conclusions.

As to never really seeming to answer questions, I think it's more that you don't like the answers I give.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

I definitely ask a lot of questions. I think that's a good thing in a discussion.

Only if you were equally ready to answer questions when they're asked of you or respond to points of view as part of the discussion. Otherwise it's just a cheesy kind of dishonest scummy way to be. A person who asks nothing but questions only takes and gives nothing to the conversation. It makes you an emotional Leach. It's the kind of thing people do when they're trying to find opportunities to appear to win an argument without actually making an argument. It's low brow thinking

Generally speaking asking a question should be to clarify points so that you can make a reply and offer an opinion. That's not what you do. Again, you're just not an intellectual level to be able to speak here without everyone kind of thinking you're a little bit of a basement dwelling dweeb

[Scott75]

On 11/8/2024 at 11:47 AM, Legato said:

On 11/8/2024 at 11:32 AM, 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.

Perhaps if animals had a complicated language as humans do, some would identify as transgender. But I suspect you don't know that I have a fair amount of misgivings concerning transgender people getting surgery. I've already said that at the present time, I think that minors shouldn't be allowed to get transgender surgery, as minors are frequently confused as to what they want in life, and transgender surgery is permanent.

Now, animals have definitely been seen engaging in homosexual behaviour:

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

Now, you could say that homosexuality has nothing to do with being transgender, but I'm not so sure. I remember comedian Bill Maher once saying that perhaps a minor thinking they're transgender is just a gay kid that wants to fit in better and I suspect that in some cases, this is true. In Iran, it's illegal to be homosexual, but it's "ok" (if still looked down upon) if you medical transition to the opposite gender. Things are clearly not so messed up here, but there is certainly a lot of pressure for homosexuals to conform to gender norms, suggesting that some might want to at least look like the opposite sex so that they can benefit from the opposite sex norms.

[Scott75]

On 11/8/2024 at 11:49 AM, Deluge said:

On 11/8/2024 at 11:32 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

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

First of all, I'd like to think that calling posters a troll is a personal attack and thus now allowed. However, I'm not sure, so I've asked the moderation team to clarify.

Secondly, if no one cared what I had to say, I think the logical thing to do would be to just put me on ignore. Instead, I got 4 responses to the post you're responding to. So it's not that no one cares, it's that a lot of people in this thread don't like my point of view. Which is fine in and of itself, but I've always felt that personal attacks is the way to derail productive discussions. If I don't care to argue with someone anymore, I just stop conversing on my end. No need to attack the messenger.

[Scott75]

On 11/8/2024 at 11:59 AM, Nationalist said:

On 11/8/2024 at 11:32 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

Man and woman.

First of all, man and woman are words, not laws of nature. I suspect you're trying to say that I'm in favour of defining those words in a way that includes trans people. I'd certainly agree to that.

[Nationalist]

33 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

I definitely ask a lot of questions. I think that's a good thing in a discussion. Admitting when you're not sure of something is generally an asset, as it prevents jumping to false conclusions.

As to never really seeming to answer questions, I think it's more that you don't like the answers I give.

I told you what I think you're opposing.

[Scott75]

On 11/8/2024 at 12:17 PM, Deluge said:

On 11/8/2024 at 12:05 PM, 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.

Your response suggests you don't really have a high opinion of information sources.

On 11/8/2024 at 12:17 PM, Deluge said:

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. 

I'm sure the KKK said similar things about black people back in the day too. It's so easy to just say that some other group is wrong and use whatever means is necessary to try to put them "back in their lane", as you say. What's hard is to actually try to understand the other group's reasoning.

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

First of all, man and woman are words, not laws of nature. I suspect you're trying to say that I'm in favour of defining those words in a way that includes trans people. I'd certainly agree to that.

No. They are laws of nature.

[User]

49 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

You can do all of these things with gender terms as social constructs. The bottom line is that democrats and republicans are social constructs as well, with no tie to biology.

Except... you didn't do that. You used the term to define the term and then tried to claim the same thing is done with Democrat and Republican, when it is not. 

Again, we are left with your absurd attempt to define male and female with the term male and female. 

 

[Scott75]

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry but like many institutions the dictionary has become political.

I doubt dictionaries were ever apolitical. Politics, after all, is:

**

 the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups

**

Source:

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

Dictionaries are created by groups of people who have to make decisions on what words mean. I suspect there has been disagreements as to how words should be defined soon after words were invented. I don't always think that various dictionaries choose the best definitions for words, but they are incredibly useful when trying to figure out what words mean, as well as letting people know when words have more than a single definition.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

First of all, I'd like to think that calling posters a troll is a personal attack and thus now allowed. However, I'm not sure, so I've asked the moderation team to clarify.

 

It's allowed here assh*le.  Been here a couple of days and you're reporting people to the 'mods'. What a 'special' person you are

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

 

I'm sure the KKK said similar things about black people back in the day too.

People certainly said it about the Nazis and the fascists.

He probably on the wrong side of that equation kiddo

[Scott75]

On 11/8/2024 at 9:51 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/8/2024 at 9:44 PM, phoenyx75 said:

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. 

No that's a little game that you're playing I've noticed and I'm really not interested in your childish games.

I'm definitely growing very tired of your insults. If you don't want to get specific as to what you're talking about, I think that makes it clear that you really don't care to try to resolve our different points of view. Which is fine, but it means there's no need for me to read beyond this first sentence of your post.

[Scott75]

On 11/8/2024 at 9:53 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/8/2024 at 9:52 PM, phoenyx75 said:

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

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

We can certainly set our own definitions for words, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge that other people have different definitions. Furthermore, if we can't find a definition in well known sources of information such as Wikipedia or dictionaries, we can just chalk it up to local slang and leave it at that. It's clear, however, that trans females has now made it into Wikipedia and some dictionaries when using the gender definition of female.

Edited November 10, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

On 11/8/2024 at 10:21 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/8/2024 at 10:16 PM, phoenyx75 said:

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.

But you insist that they will.

Care to elaborate on what you mean by that sentence?

[Scott75]

On 11/8/2024 at 10:23 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/8/2024 at 10:21 PM, phoenyx75 said:

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

Language only works when there is a consensus.

Where did you get that idea?

From reason and common sense as well as practical experience.

As I said in the post you were responding to:

**

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.

**

[Scott75]

On 11/8/2024 at 11:36 PM, CdnFox said:

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.

Good to know. It suggests you don't care much for what I have to say. I think it's a good rule of thumb to not spend too much time on people who don't care much about what you have to say, wouldn't you agree?

On 11/8/2024 at 11:36 PM, CdnFox said:

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

Alright, so right off the bat, you state "what a dishonest discussion this is", presumably suggesting that I'm being dishonest. Nothing to back this up ofcourse. Then you say that the post you're replying to "brings nothing to the table". The irony is that in the second to last sentence, you actually reveal why I'd asked all those questions- as you said, I was trying to make sure that I understood your position. Which brings me to the fact that you -don't- ask a lot of questions. You simply jump to conclusions, such as your "dishonest" bit and roll with it. 

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 11:03 AM, User said:

On 11/9/2024 at 10:11 AM, 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.

And what problem do you think I'm creating?

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 11:03 AM, User said:

On 11/9/2024 at 10:07 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

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

**

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.

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

First of all, responding to posts is easy, as is making unsubstantiated assertions. Substantiating assertions, on the other hand, is frequently quite hard. It frequently requires doing research and then responding in a persuasive way, frequently with quotes from recognized sources of information and links to said recognized sources.