Are you a man or a woman?

[Scott75]

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

  

On 11/9/2024 at 10:04 AM, 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.

Yet more unsubstantiated assertions. You're just reinforcing my point- what you do is easy. Backing up assertions isn't.

Edited November 10, 2024 by phoenyx75

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

Good to know. It suggests you don't care much for what I have to say.

It's not a question of caring. It's a question of whether or not anything you say has value. If it contributes to a conversation or not or is just you being a pathetic little weasel.

I tend to listen to people I don't care about as long as they're bringing to something to the table. Maybe there's something interesting in there I didn't know about.

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

First of all, responding to posts is easy, as is making unsubstantiated assertions. 

All you make is unsubstantiated assertions. Literally all your points either contradict your previous point which you will return to later or their circular logic.

 

[User]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

And what problem do you think I'm creating?

The very problem you are sitting here claiming you are solving. That there is some need for language to clarify what a real man is. 

No, we already have that language. Men are men and trans people are trans. 

 

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

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.

Posting links instead of actually engaging in a real argument is easy too. Wikipedia is not substantiation. Certainly is not any research, nor is posting links and spamming other peoples words persuasion. 

 

[User]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

Yet more unsubstantiated assertions. You're just reinforcing my point- what you do is easy. Backing up assertions isn't.

No, your posting links without any thoughts of your own is easy. I actually made an argument, you can't come up with a response, so you do what you do instead. 

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 11:08 AM, User said:

On 11/9/2024 at 9:52 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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. 

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

I'm not sure, but that's irrelevant. Your statement wasn't that 99% of the population wasn't transgender. Your statement was that I wanted "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've presented no evidence that calling biological males and females who identify as their biological gender would create a problem for 99% of the population.

On 11/9/2024 at 11:08 AM, User said:

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

It only works if the people you are calling males and females define males and females as only those who are biologically so. If some of the people you are addressing also define males and females as those who are biologically of one gender, but identify as the other,  you have a problem.

Edited November 10, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 11:10 AM, User said:

On 11/9/2024 at 10:47 AM, 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. 

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this one.

On 11/9/2024 at 11:10 AM, User said:

You can't even defend the lousy definition of the terms you want to use.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this one too.

On 11/9/2024 at 11:10 AM, User said:

You define the terms with the term. It is nonsensical gibberish. 

I and a fair amount of others define terms like male and female gender by including the word male and female, but it's not the whole term. So, someone who is of the male gender is someone who identifies as a male. It's similar to someone who is a democrat is someone who identifies as a democrat. The point is that it's a social construct. You can ofcourse call it "gibberish" if you like, but it's a concept that's now embedded in Wikipedia and in some dictionaries and I suspect it's a definition that's here to stay whether you like it or not.

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 11:15 AM, User said:

On 11/9/2024 at 10:42 AM, 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.

First of all, I'm not attempting to define words like gender, male and female in more then one way. It was done long before I arrived on the scene to talk about it. As a matter of fact, it's gotten to the point where sources such as Wikipedia and some dictionaries are already doing it. That doesn't happen overnight.

Anyway, thanks for explaining your current viewpoint in regards to the multiple definitions of these terms- according to you (and others I presume) there is one legitimate definition, and another illegitimate one. Fair enough. Whether you want to call some of the definitions for these words illegitimate or not, they're in Wikipedia and dictionaries, so I suspect you'll have to deal with them in your life, and not just from some online poster. 

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 11:15 AM, User said:

On 11/9/2024 at 10:42 AM, 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.

My reasoning is fairly simple- some people who are born of one biological gender identify as the other one socially. Now, we can accept this fact, or we can harass them to the point that they come to think they need to get hormones/hormone blockers and surgery just so that they can look more like the biological gender they identify with. I for one thing this is a terrible tragedy, one that I believe could frequently be avoided if we'd just let people identify with social gender they believe they belong to. As well as letting some identify as the gender neutral "they" and recognizing the gender neutral single person Spivak pronouns, which I personally find is better as it avoids wondering if people are referring to 1 or more people when saying "they".

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 11:25 AM, User said:

On 11/9/2024 at 10:57 AM, 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.

I suspect we may have to agree to disagree on whether or not they are using them in a "nonsensical way". I'm just glad that you acknowledge that the Cambridge dictionary is now using them.

On 11/9/2024 at 11:25 AM, User said:

If you are here trying to win a popularity contest

I am not.

  

On 11/9/2024 at 11:25 AM, User said:

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. 

As I've said before, anyone can say they have "logic, common sense, and reason on my side". What's harder is to provide evidence for one's assertions.

  

On 11/9/2024 at 11:25 AM, User said:

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

Look, if you want to just make unsubstantiated assertions, that's your call to make. I personally prefer substantiated assertions.

Edited November 10, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 12:03 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/9/2024 at 9:52 AM, 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.

First of all, I was responding to User, not to you. Did you get confused? Secondly, saying that my replies are "dishonest in the extreme" is just one more unsubstantiated assertion in a long line of them. It gets tiring.

On 11/9/2024 at 12:03 PM, CdnFox said:

And posting 20 replies to someone is just plain bad antiquate so i can tell you're very young. Nith

Did you mean to say "bad etiquette"? In any case, if you don't like my posts, you don't have to respond to them. Instead, you're responding to them even when they're not addressed to you.

 

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 12:05 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/9/2024 at 11:59 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/9/2024 at 11:54 AM, 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.

Or we just don't.

I guess that's another possibility.

On 11/9/2024 at 12:05 PM, CdnFox said:

We refuse to give in to the stupidity and we maintain the right to our language.

I think it's always dangerous to call other people's beliefs "stupidity", as no one likes being insulted, but we're just in an online forum here, so if there's only place to do it, it's probably here.

On 11/9/2024 at 12:05 PM, CdnFox said:

Looks like you've convinced a few others too read through the comments

Not sure if I can take credit for that. For all we know, Goddess may have just read Deluge's opening post, responded to that and called it a day.

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 12:05 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/9/2024 at 10:01 AM, 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.

That's right.

On 11/9/2024 at 12:05 PM, CdnFox said:

What a lying little shit you are

More personal attacks eh? At one point, I had hoped that our discussion could actually lead to something productive. With each foul mouthed thing you say, that hope dims.

[Scott75]

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

22 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

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

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.

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

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. There's a line I might have come up with that goes like this:

"You can choose your actions, but not your attractions". This is why people frequently try to change what they're attracted to, to no avail. I was just reading of one such case, the actress Chloe Grace Moretz. Until around the time of the U.S. Federal Elections, I had no idea she was gay. Only reason I found out was because she made a post on instagram saying it openly. Anyway, I decided to read her Wikipedia page and found this:

**

Moretz has publicly supported LGBT equality.^[84] Moretz, who is gay, also has two gay brothers; Moretz states they had initially tried to "pray the gay away" to appease their community.^[85] 

**

Source:

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

Ultimately, this is what all of this comes down to- community individuals such as yourself who are uncomfortable that some people have attractions and identities that don't conform to what you think is appropriate. It can lead to gay people trying to "pray the gay away" and conversion therapy. For those who are unfamiliar with that last term:

**

Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of attempting to change an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to align with heterosexual and cisgender norms.^[1] Methods that have been used to this end include forms of brain surgery, surgical or hormonal castration, aversive treatments such as electric shocks, nausea-inducing drugs, hypnosis, counseling, spiritual interventions, visualization, psychoanalysis, and arousal reconditioning.

There is a scientific consensus that conversion therapy is ineffective at changing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity and that it frequently causes significant long-term psychological harm.^[2] The position of current evidence-based medicine and clinical guidance is that homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender variance are natural and healthy aspects of human sexuality.^[2][3]

**

Source:

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

And last but perhaps not least, we have "Gender affirming surgery", something I think would be a lot less common if people would just accept the gender that people identify with without having to undergo such things.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

 

You've presented no evidence that calling biological males and females who identify as their biological gender would create a problem for 99% of the population.

 

But we have. Most find it insulting and derogatory and when you are insulting a derogatory to a huge hunk of the population like that it does create problems. If you're not educated enough to realize that then I'm afraid you're not old enough to have this conversation yet

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 7:46 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/9/2024 at 7:39 PM, 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.

If a person doesn't know the answer to a question, I think the best thing to do is to say that. If there's points of view that you believe I haven't responded to that doesn't involve personal attacks on me, by all means point them out.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

If a person doesn't know the answer to a question, I think the best thing to do is to say that. 

Well no, that's kind of stupid. If I don't know the answer to a question I go find the answer. By doing that I become more knowledgeable. But I don't just ignore the question and remain stupid.

And you're here making statements of fact that you claim to be absolute and then when you are questioned on it suddenly you don't know the answers?

Again, more dishonest grade six debate club nonsense that doesn't fly in the real world with adults. And people are fed up with it.

Seriously why are you here? You're not here to discuss an issue that's for sure. And you're a little attempts at preaching the issue are going extremely badly.

[Deluge]

On 11/9/2024 at 7:03 PM, 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.

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.

You ignore the answers and they're all stronger than anything you've got, yet you keep flapping your cyber gums. After a while that schtick gets old and you start to look more and more like a troll. 

Now, I don't put anyone on ignore, but I do turn up the insults when people like you turn into Stupidville. If YOU don't like the insults, then I suggest you pull your head out of the Left's ass, or you can simply stfu. 

Deal? 

Edited November 11, 2024 by Deluge

[Deluge]

On 11/9/2024 at 7:13 PM, phoenyx75 said:

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

2. 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.

1. I don't have a high opinion of YOUR sources, for sure. 

2. The KKK hates black people and used to murder them, I just want the LGBT community to stay in their lane, and YOU are a troll.

Everyone has his place, it's just that my place is the best place.  

 

[Legato]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

If a person doesn't know the answer to a question, I think the best thing to do is to say that. If there's points of view that you believe I haven't responded to that doesn't involve personal attacks on me, by all means point them out.

and the wheels on the bus go round and around...round and around........♫

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

and the wheels on the bus go round and around...round and around........♫

I think this one has the parking brake on

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 8:14 PM, Nationalist said:

On 11/9/2024 at 8:07 PM, 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.

Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 8:22 PM, User said:

On 11/9/2024 at 7:31 PM, 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.

First of all, it would be nice if you'd acknowledge that I'm not the person who expanded the meanings gender terms. It was done long before I arrived on the scene and is now included in places like Wikipedia and some dictionaries.

Secondly, it -is- done with Democrats and Republicans. A Democrat is someone who identifies as a Democrat, same thing with a Republican.

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

Can a woman procreate without a man? No.

Can a man procreate without a woman? No.

Thus...law of nature.

[Scott75]

On 11/9/2024 at 10:02 PM, CdnFox said:

On 11/9/2024 at 8:03 PM, 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.

I guess I'll find out, as well as whether it's fine to call posters what you just called me. Regardless, it's sad when people stoop to such crass insults. But then, some people just never really got a decent education. A real shame.

On 11/9/2024 at 10:02 PM, CdnFox said:

Been here a couple of days and you're reporting people to the 'mods'. What a 'special' person you are

I actually joined this forum back in April, though I didn't post that much before I got into this thread. As to reporting to the mods, I think it's a good idea to try to see what type of insults are allowed in a forum, as this type of thing tends to get me to decide on how much I'd like to participate in said forum. 

[User]

15 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

You've presented no evidence that calling biological males and females who identify as their biological gender would create a problem for 99% of the population.

You have presented no evidence there is any problem with simply calling people male, female, and trans...

So, whatever evidence you think you have here for whatever percentage of people that are trans, use those numbers and my argument is that the vast majority of the population was just fine with things as is and you are flipping it around to cater to the firing minority. 

YOU are creating a problem that doesn't exist. 

15 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

It only works if the people you are calling males and females define males and females as only those who are biologically so. If some of the people you are addressing also define males and females as those who are biologically of one gender, but identify as the other,  you have a problem.

You don't seem to care at all about the vast majority of people who define the terms as they actually are and instead want to create a new term for them. 

This is only a problem of your own creation. 

Men are males. Women are females. Trans are trans. Easy.