Are you a man or a woman?

[Scott75]

On 12/22/2024 at 4:08 PM, Deluge said:

On 12/22/2024 at 11:51 AM, Scott75 said:

I've certainly seen various people from both sides of this debate accuse their ideological opponents of dishonesty. I myself haven't seen any evidence of anyone -trying- to deceive anyone else. There's a very big difference between being mistaken and trying to deceive others.

I entered this thread in post #10. You responded to me in post #18.

As to your first question, for some reason, I wasn't able to participate in the poll. Perhaps that's just as well though, because given the nature of this thread, I think it would have been better to replace "I am a man" and "I identify as a man" with "I'm a cisgender man" and "I'm a transgender man". In any case, I'm a cisgender man.

As to your second question, as I told someone else (User, I believe), my definition of a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. And yes, I know, this definition includes the word itself.  A lot of people are fine with that, but I know that some aren't and I imagine you're one of those people. If you want to know a person's biological sex and believe it wouldn't be inappropriate to ask, you can ask them that instead.

You would have chosen "I identify as something else", as you think you are a "cisgender man" when you're really just a man whose been brainwashed by trans activists.

No, I wouldn't have, because I identify as a man. I am also a biological man. I also haven't been brainwashed. What I find rather ironic is that until I started to participate in this thread, I was much more ambivalent in regards to a lot of trans issues. As I've pointed out in the past, I was unabashedly for J.K. Rowlings' stance on women and like you, I had thought that saying that defining a woman as someone who identifies as a woman made no sense either. It was only after really getting involved in this thread and doing a fair amount of research on the subject that I had a change of heart.

On 12/22/2024 at 4:08 PM, Deluge said:

A woman is just a woman. Your mom is a woman. You know this because she gave birth to you, and only women can give birth to human beiings - it's how we perpetuate our species. 

I hope this helps you. 

A woman is a word, and a word is what people define it to mean. As I've said many times in this thread, there is a substantial amount of people who now define a woman as anyone who identifies as a woman. You may not like it, but that doesn't change this fact.

As to your belief that only women can give birth to human beings, I agree that by one definition of women, this is true. By the definition that people are the gender they identify with, it's not true, as a biological woman who identifies as a man could, in fact, give birth to human beings.

Edited December 27, 2024 by Scott75

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

As User essentially pointed out somewhat crudely in post #682, I was responding to CdnFox, not User. Regardless, though, I don't feel that's the truth for User or even CdnFox. I do feel that CdnFox really resorts far too much to insults when he disagrees with someone, which really doesn't help move a discussion forward.

If you insist on behaving like an ignorant dolt, then you shouldn't be surprised when someone calls you an ignorant dolt. Thats kind of how it works. 

I mean legitimate comments and gave you a chance to respond to them and instead you chose to play ignorant games. And now you're mad because more and more people are not interested and engaging with your dishonesty.

I saw the other day that Vladimir Putin was very angry that someone fired a missile into Russia. It seems like he doesn't feel that he provoked anything. You remind me of him a lot.

[Scott75]

On 12/22/2024 at 4:16 PM, Deluge said:

On 12/22/2024 at 12:28 PM, Scott75 said:

On 12/15/2024 at 2:57 PM, Deluge said:

What you want is transsexualism everywhere, and that's not better for anyone. 

I'm not even sure what that means. What I want is for people to be able to define their gender as the gender they identify with. I also think that being more accepting of people who don't fit inside the conventional norms for gender could go a long way to making trans people not feel the need for hormones/hormone blockers and surgery and just be fine with the appearance that their biological sex gives them.

What it means is that you want the trans community to define who everyone is and that's just about the stupidest thing anyone could ever want.

No, I want individuals to be able to define who they themselves are. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be limits. I know that someone posted a video here of a man who had been driving a car identifying as a cat when asked to provide his license and the police explaining to him how that wouldn't fly if he wanted to keep on driving. There are times and places to identify as things of that nature, and doing it while being pulled over by a cop isn't one of them.

Even when it comes to human beings, I think there should be limits to how far one can go in regards to defining people. I think it's universally acknowledged that biological men are better at sports then biology women for reasons that have to do with biology. For this reason, I'm fine with biological women being able to compete in an environment without biological men. 

But there are many other areas where I don't see any reason why transgender people can't define their gender as the gender they identify with and have that respected by others.

On 12/22/2024 at 4:16 PM, Deluge said:

Everything you're fighting for is based on the fever dreams of a few degenerates, and it won't fly here in the US. 

Always dangerous when people start thinking of human beings as degenerates. Many groups, from the KKK to the Nazis have followed similar path, and we both know the atrocities they've committed.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

No, they really can't.

Of course they can. This is Canada, this isn't around the world. So you had to take what I said and dishonestly stretch it into a venue we weren't discussing, unless you're suggesting we should go to war with other nations to secure the rights of transgender people elsewhere.

What they can't do is step on the rights of other people and that's what they tried to do. They tried dishonestly to set the rights of others aside and repress them.  In Canada

And now they're getting pushback. And they deserve it. Those who repress cannot complain about being repressed

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

I can agree that my side's been making some erroneous and insulting assertions as well, but as I was taught in grade school, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

And yet you continue it.

I was taught that if someone tries to bully you you punch them in the face. That's how I handle bullies. Don't want to get punched in the face? Don't be a bully

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I'm just pointing out that you seem to have a case of transphobia.

Here's a classic example. You cannot argue with what @User Has said, and you refuse to address his legitimate concerns and cannot come up with a reasonable argument so therefore you accuse him of having a mental illness. You claim that his fears are irrational and a product of a paranoia.  

So you choose to insult and degrade someone rather than address them in legitimate and honest conversation and then you will go on to complain about how myself and others are just too darn insulting for your tastes 🙄

And this is why nobody is respecting you here. You are an ignorant little weasel who tries to pass himself off as a pseudo intellectual when in reality you have the intellectual capacity of a grade six student in the debating skills have a grade three and rather than improve those skills you just simply choose to be obnoxious

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

 

Always dangerous when people start thinking of human beings as degenerates. 

Agreed.

It's anti-politics at it's worst.  An attempt to control conversation and eliminate discussion.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

No, I want individuals to be able to define who they themselves are.

They can do that for themselves but they can't do that for everyone else and considering that you insist that straight people identify as "cis" You pretty much shot yourself in the foot already

And yes, you are saying there shouldn't be limits or that the limits should be so insanely far past what's reasonable that they're only for show anyway. 

 

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed.

It's anti-politics at it's worst.  An attempt to control conversation and eliminate discussion.

You literally call most people you disagree with Chuds.  Then try to walk it back when you get called on it. You dehumanize people all the time. 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

 

You literally call most people you disagree with Chuds.   

That's an outright lie.  Back to ignore...

 

BAD poster!  😖. BAD !!!

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's an outright lie.  Back to ignore...

That is an absolute truth and I believe it was only 2 days ago you used the term.

But of course as soon as someone points out the truth you run and stick your head in the sand rather than address the fact.

You see @Scott75, This is just like your own hypocrisy. This is why nobody respects the left these days, and why I respect is falling for every group like the trans people who have pushed woke agendas and scream about how other people cannot have intelligent conversations while they themselves insult and run away when confronted. It's quite easy to do a search and see that Michael has in fact use the word chuds to describe people he disagrees with very regularly but as soon as it's mentioned he runs away. You have been no different than this thread.

Respect is earned. I have disagreed with just about every right-wing person here at one point or another as well but at least they make an honest argument and if we cannot come to an agreement then we move on but they don't play the same childish games that you and Michael seem to enjoy

[Nationalist]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed.

It's anti-politics at it's worst.  An attempt to control conversation and eliminate discussion.

Yes "Chud"...

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

As I've said before, there are other ways of differentiating between people who are transgender and people who are cisgender. They're just more cumbersome. The one I came up with previously are ones like this: "A biological man who identifies as a man". Cisgender is just shorter. If given a choice between the 2, I'd go with cisgender.

Like I've said before, there are other ways of differentiating between people who are trannies and people who are normal, they're just more cumbersome

Straight and Transgender works just fine. But you don't like that because it's not enough of a pejorative.

Man and transgender man works just fine too. Not cumbersome in this latest. But you feel it lends a certain credibility to men who are biological males and therefore you don't like it

What you want to do is to create a new word because you don't want anything that's positive that's associated with previous language to continue. You want to redefine what it means to be a man in its entirety in exclusion of the previous history of men. Same for women.

Nothing to do with being cumbersome or difficult or we didn't already have a perfectly good term and has everything to do with you looking for ways to try and promote society to think of men and women as being less than they are

[NAME REMOVED]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Like I've said before, there are other ways of differentiating between people who are trannies and people who are normal, they're just more cumbersome

What is your definition of "normal?"

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What you want to do is to create a new word because you don't want anything that's positive that's associated with previous language to continue.

...says the guy who calls everyone he disagrees with him "woke."

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

 

...says the guy who calls everyone he disagrees with him "woke."

I find a rolled up newspaper on the nose does the trick...

 

That, or ignore...

[User]

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

1- Don't kid yourself, it's your problem too. If it wasn't, we'd really have nothing to discuss here. The same goes for society. If this problem didn't exist in society, there wouldn't be court cases dealing with how to deal with people who are born of a given sex but identify with the opposite gender.

2- I didn't "create" this problem, it's one that predates my birth. Nor am I "pushing" it. I'm simply pointing it out.

3- I think a better word for what you're doing isn't rejecting the problem, so much as denying the fact that it exists. But that won't change the fact that it does in fact exist.

Nope. This is only my problem in as much as you are trying to fabricate it into being one for me. 

Yes, you are here pushing this. You are not merely pointing it out. You have been making arguments for this. 

No, there is no problem. Once again, men are males, women are females and trans people are trans people. No problem. 

 

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

As I've said before, there are other ways of differentiating between people who are transgender and people who are cisgender. They're just more cumbersome. The one I came up with previously are ones like this: "A biological man who identifies as a man". Cisgender is just shorter. If given a choice between the 2, I'd go with cisgender.

Nope. Its very simple. 

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

[User]

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I'm just pointing out that you seem to have a case of transphobia.

No, you were accusing someone else of this, now you are accusing me. Either way, it is a sad pathetic tactic to make this personal. To my point, you are not above the fray. You may not be calling me stupid or dumb, but saying I have transphobia is no less a pathetic personal smear. 

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I said that in -some- ways

It adds nothing to the discussion other than to lump someone in with an obviously bad group like the KKK. It is a petty and disgusting jab that makes this personal. To the point again... you are not above the fray. 

If you want to lecture people on name calling or personal insults, deal with your own attempts to make things personal here. At least have the honesty to own up to it instead of this pathetic attempt to weasel your way out of it. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed.

It's anti-politics at it's worst.  An attempt to control conversation and eliminate discussion.

From the guy who threatens to ignore everyone or repeatedly brags about ignoring everyone, or has to tell others to ignore everyone who doesn't perfectly respond to you the way you want to be responded to... 

 

[User]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's an outright lie.  Back to ignore...

 

BAD poster!  😖. BAD !!!

Holy crap. I did a search for chud by posts made by you... There are pages of them. 

"I personally hate that I have to use a provocative term like Chud to describe the fake conservatives who populate this board like potato bugs on the wet side of a rock... BUT... even the best of them delight in calling people groomers, woke, wokies and wokescolds.  Those terms are identical to Chud in etymological formation.. except that I have pioneered the term Chud and will continue to use it as it is apt."

"All of our Chud friends will likely stop posting though.  Too bad."

"Can the true conservatives and liberals on here please stop tolerating Chud logic in these discussions ?  Thank you."

"I am not.  That's Chud logic. "

"The OP seems to quote some blog and as such is suspect.   Shit sources are a Chud thing, a we all know, so let's give some red meat (Read ?  Meet !)."

[Michael Hardner]

No!

[User]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

No!

When you are confronted with the things you say on here, you react very poorly. 

[Deluge]

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

1. No, I wouldn't have, because I identify as a man. I am also a biological man. I also haven't been brainwashed. What I find rather ironic is that until I started to participate in this thread, I was much more ambivalent in regards to a lot of trans issues. As I've pointed out in the past, I was unabashedly for J.K. Rowlings' stance on women and like you, I had thought that saying that defining a woman as someone who identifies as a woman made no sense either. It was only after really getting involved in this thread and doing a fair amount of research on the subject that I had a change of heart.

2. A woman is a word, and a word is what people define it to mean. As I've said many times in this thread, there is a substantial amount of people who now define a woman as anyone who identifies as a woman. You may not like it, but that doesn't change this fact.

3. As to your belief that only women can give birth to human beings, I agree that by one definition of women, this is true. By the definition that people are the gender they identify with, it's not true, as a biological woman who identifies as a man could, in fact, give birth to human beings.

1. Yes, all that research turned you into a male vagina. It's what happens when you put someone's radical ideology ahead of your own convictions. 

May the true you RIP...

2. A woman is still a woman regardless of what the psychopathic LGBT community thinks. 

3. "Gender" is an outdated concept that's now being abused by woke lunatics. You would do well to get back to where you were before you were brainwashed by that research from a bunch of activists. 

[Deluge]

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

1. No, I want individuals to be able to define who they themselves are. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be limits. I know that someone posted a video here of a man who had been driving a car identifying as a cat when asked to provide his license and the police explaining to him how that wouldn't fly if he wanted to keep on driving. There are times and places to identify as things of that nature, and doing it while being pulled over by a cop isn't one of them.

Even when it comes to human beings, I think there should be limits to how far one can go in regards to defining people. I think it's universally acknowledged that biological men are better at sports then biology women for reasons that have to do with biology. For this reason, I'm fine with biological women being able to compete in an environment without biological men. 

But there are many other areas where I don't see any reason why transgender people can't define their gender as the gender they identify with and have that respected by others.

2. Always dangerous when people start thinking of human beings as degenerates. Many groups, from the KKK to the Nazis have followed similar path, and we both know the atrocities they've committed.

1. You're in mid-transition at this point, but you keep up with that research and you'll be screaming with the purple mammoths in no time.  

2. No it isn't. If a person acts like a degenerate then he needs to be called out. The KKK and the Nazis have nothing to do with it. You need to grow a pair. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

What is your definition of "normal?"

 

adjective

 

1. 1.

   conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

   "it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food"

    

   How is it you still don't have a dictionary at your age?

    

   The vast majority of males and females fall within a standard or expected or typical range of sex and gender. A handful don't and that's fine, but that doesn't mean there's not a normal

   7 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

   ...says the guy who calls everyone he disagrees with him "woke."

   I only disagree with the woke ones 😁

   And lets be fair, i call you a lot more than that. I'm quite diverse in my criticisms   

 

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No!

Awwww.......... was that you as a child? Is that why you grew up this way?  

Was the nasty trainer being a Chud?!?  LOLOL

[Scott75]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No!

I found myself laughing at this, thought of putting a laughing emoji, and then thought, then I might be criticized for laughing at someone insulting other posters :-p. I think we can agree that it would be -so- nice if we could all have a respectful debate, but it seems that a lot of the time, that's just not in our reach. So while I laughed at this and almost immediately afterwards thought, I shouldn't make any sign of this for fear of someone castigating my 'double standards' or what not, I decided it was best to just reveal it, as well as what came afterwards, which is a sadness that for the most part, the level of discourse is so poor :-/.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I found myself laughing at this, thought of putting a laughing emoji, and then thought, then I might be criticized for laughing at someone insulting other posters 

It's ok.  I hold no malice to any posters here, nor any Chuds should they appear.

I have LIKED posts by CanFox and User on occasion, so I doubt they would feel singled out.  There is a mutual respect there, though admittedly more them for me...

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I think we can agree that it would be -so- nice if we could all have a respectful debate, but it seems that a lot of the time, that's just not in our reach.

But there's nothing respectful about your debate. You walk into the debate and being insulting and arrogant and refusing to address any of the points that are made to you.

And Michael is even worse. I pointed out something that is not only true but is easily verified and in fact was verified by another poster here as soon as I said it and he throws nothing but insults and then runs away to complain about how we can't have an honest discourse.

It is 100% obvious that you have no interest in this honest discourse. How does that make your cause look do you think. Do you think people are reading this and thinking better of trans people and their advocates? Do you think this is advancing your cause?

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's ok.  I hold no malice to any posters here, nor any Chuds should they appear.

 

Sigh. 

It's like trying to explain to archie bunker why he's racist  

[Scott75]

On 12/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, Deluge said:

On 12/22/2024 at 12:58 PM, Scott75 said:

For starters, as I've told people in the past, there's a big difference between someone saying something that's not true and someone saying something they -know- isn't true. Insulting people because they're saying something that isn't true is the wrong way to go about showing them the error of their ways. The most likely result of insults and other flame bait material is for the entire conversation to devolve into a flame war.

That goes without saying. The question is, do you know you're speaking falsehoods, or are you truly ignorant? I was leaning toward the latter until I got further down in your post; now I just think you are lying.

I suppose I should console myself with the fact that at least you haven't said that you are -sure- I am "lying", as at least one poster here has done. Anyway, let's get to more of what you've said in your post...

On 12/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, Deluge said:

On 12/22/2024 at 12:58 PM, Scott75 said:

As I've said in the past, there is no common "trans agenda". There are transgender people, who have different ideas as to how the world should be, just like there are cisgender people who have different ideas as to how the world should be. I'm actually in the latter category.

Yes there is. LGBT has an agenda, and the "T" in LGBT stands for Trans.

 

You have a link handy for this alleged LGBT agenda?

On 12/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, Deluge said:

There's also this link, which I've posted before: 

https://transgenderlawcenter.org/trans-agenda-for-liberation/

I suppose some in the trans community decided to make use of this notion that they have an unified agenda :-p. The very first line of text on that page is this:

"The Trans Agenda for Liberation is a community-led guide towards the world we deserve."

That certainly sounds fine, but that definitely doesn't mean that all transgender people on board with their guide, let alone all the people who support transgender people.