Are you a man or a woman?

Michael Hardner · December 28, 2024

3 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

The thing about destinations is that there is generally no end to the ones we'd like to reach. Once one is reached, we strive to reach another :-).

I also agree that people couldn't have imagined back then that people would be fighting over who should use which bathroom and whether some bathrooms should be redesigned. That's the thing about progress- it takes us to places where we have to come up with solutions to novel problems.

As to how far we have to go, as far as we like.

Finally, as to the goal of zero description and having to work on the Irish again, I'm not sure what you mean by the Irish bit, but I -suspect- that the answer is, yes, the Irish issue still needs work too.

I -suspect- that an issue that you are subtly bringing up is whether we should focus so much attention on such issues. I think that's a choice that every individual needs to make for themselves. For now, I think it warrants my attention, but, as has happened in the past, I may stop talking about it if I find that there is something the deserves my attention more.

Yes, if we're on an endless journey to equalize rights, we should stop saying there's so much further to go, since it's meaningless. We're not stopping, then.

If that's the case, are we supposed to focus on such matters with equal intensity at all times?

What is the appetite for political change in such a case?

Should we just keep adding issues to the list forever?

As inarticulate and ignorant as Chuds are, they have stumbled onto something that necessarily requires attention: class consciousness. And that discussion needs bandwidth, at the expense of the debate about, for example, straight people are bigoted for not having sex with trans people...

Deluge · December 28, 2024

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I think I may agree with you that pole dancing in front of kids isn't the best idea, but I suspect that this happens rarely anyway. I'm a supporter of Drag Queen Story Hour, though. Wikipedia has a page on it:

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

Again, this is an area where the culture war in the U.S. and other places is clearly ongong. Quoting the final section of the article above makes this clear:

**

Bans on DSH [Drag Queen Story Hour] have been proposed and enacted in several jurisdictions.

Current laws make DSH events illegal in several countries, including Hungary and Russia.

In the United States, DSH is banned in the state of Tennessee (but was blocked by a federal judge) and bans are being considered in several other states.^[75]

**

As to why I'm in favour, here's a good reason that the article mentioned:

**

The New York Times noted "Laura Edwards-Leeper, a clinical psychologist in Oregon who works with queer and trans kids, said that experimenting with gender expression isn't necessarily linked to being queer or trans."^[38] and "It's normal at basically any age for boys to dress up as princesses and girls in male superhero outfits".^[38] She argues that what changed is parenting: "When there's no judgment, kids are more likely to feel free to explore".^[38]

**

Left unsaid, but I think implied, is that it allows kids to express their 'gender' the way they'd like to, without feeling that they need to suppress it because it won't look "normal".

Kids need to be taught who they are, not who they've been told to think who they are, and this is accomplished through biology instruction.

When I say the trannies need to stay in their lane, that also means gender identity is out of public schools.

Show me the kids who just randomely think they are the opposite sex without ANY outside influence, and I'll show you a kid who's either pretend playing during recess, or suffering through a mental disorder.

Edited December 28, 2024 by Deluge

Deluge · December 28, 2024

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

For the audience, I dealt with the first sentence in my previous post. As to "No homosexual/transsexual novels or storybooks in libraries", "no pronouns" and "no gender identity bull****", I think I understand where this is all coming from. It seems you're afraid of the LGBT community and think that other people should be too. Fortunately, I think that initiatives like the ones you mention are gaining steam and soon, people who think like you will become a thing of the past. It just takes time.

The same when it comes to bathrooms- it's not that hard to make each bathroom cubile private, as a matter of fact, that's the way female bathrooms are already set up. Simply having unisex bathrooms with private cubicles for everyone might be the solution to this.

As to your final comment on the left wing, it's not just the left wing that's changing as I've mentioned in the past- there's a faction within the Republican party that is also becoming more amenable to these changes as well. Quoting from an article on the subject:

**

There are wide ideological differences within both parties. Two-thirds of conservative Republicans (66%) view the impact of same-sex marriage negatively. Nearly the same share of moderate and liberal Republicans (62%) take a positive view.

**

Full article:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/15/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-legalization-of-same-sex-marriage-is-good-for-society/

Scott75 believes transsexualism is America's future, and I think he's gotten highly excited about that idea. I wouldn't be surprised if he's already considering gender reassignment surgery.

He also thinks there aren't enough bathrooms and locker rooms. He wants to increase financial burden on both the private and public sectors in order to fuel the gender fantasy he's developed while researching transsexualism.

S75 also hates urinals; he feels they are mysoginistic or bigoted or even racist somehow.

Scott75 is probably asexual. He must be asking himself why he couldn't have been created in a laboratory.

Scott75 · December 28, 2024

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I think this is the first time in this thread that Marxists were even mentioned in this thread. I'm drawn to a recent comment made by Michael Hardner:

*

They won, and LGBTQ is almost absorbed into our culture.

The so-called left refuses to celebrate this, because it would mean that they're no longer needed as warriors in the social struggle.

*

I suspect he has a good point here. By the same token, conservative republicans would -also- want to ignore the fact that many in their own party are becoming more accepting, because they then wouldn't be able to frame the issue as a right vs. left affair, but rather one where even members of their own party are becoming more accepting.

It's not left versus right. Left versus right is about power dynamics between the ruling class and workers.

Could you elaborate on these power dynamics?

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Identity politics is easier to understand, because it's simply a moral take. No study required. You can have an opinion that is as basic as "I hate f*gs" or "I hate redneck haters"

It's even got so dumb that people call identity politics warriors "Marxists" although it has nothing to do with Marxism. You absolutely should put such types on IGNORE, as it's been pointed out to them that this is the case.

They're just being brats...

I suspect it's not quite as simple as you make it sound, although I certainly agree with you that identiy politics warriors aren't Marxists, at least not by default. I certainly don't consider myself a Marxist at any rate. I'm not saying that Karl Marx didn't have some interesting things to say, but I identify more with terms that are more in use today- I've liked the term progressive, but I've also seen it used in ways that I don't like, so there's that.

User · December 28, 2024

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, yes, because it's about freedom. If you don't like it, don't participate. If you're personally disgusted then eat your feelings.

How do they think the kids got to the drag queen storytime? The parents took them, or at the least allowed them to attend.

I agree with parental rights.

I am glad to see you are finished throwing your tantrum. Welcome back.

Drag queen storytime on private property for kids taken by their parents is easy... its gets more complicated though when we start talking about using public resources to promote this garbage and doing so for kids that were not brought by their parents.

Oh, let me guess, this is where you claim it isn't happening?

It gets even worse when we start talking about drag queen strip shows. Private or not, we don't let kids go into strip clubs or other adult-oriented entertainment venues. There should be no exceptions for perverted men who get off on dressing like strippers and dancing in front of little children.

Deluge · December 28, 2024

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

In the past, I decided to look up the meaning of an agenda pusher. I found the following definition, which I think fits:

**

It means that you are forcing/pushing other people to accept your opinions, actions, values while disregarding theirs.

**

Source:

https://hinative.com/questions/20350859

I'd say it's -you- who are pushing an agenda, with your continual use of the word tranny, despite the fact that you know that it's an insult to transgender people at this point. You don't want to listen to viewpoints that differ from your own and apparently want to silence those who disagree with you into submission, with insults if necessary.

I actually have very strong moral values. It's one of the reasons I decided to take up this discussion to begin with.

Sorry, pal, my pushing is all pushBACK. I'm arguing to preserve what's already been. YOU and your dear allies the trannies, are the ones doing the pushing. We were here first, not you.

Remember: YOU are pushing for what you want to be. I am pushing BACK for what's already been.

You have ZERO morals. All you have is a political agenda.

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Actually, the Phoenix is part of both Greek -and- Egyptian mythology:

**

The phoenix is an immortal bird that cyclically regenerates or is otherwise born again. While it is part of Greek mythology, it has analogs in many cultures, such as Egyptian and Persian mythology. Associated with the sun, a phoenix obtains new life by rising from the ashes of its predecessor.

[snip]

The origin of the phoenix has been attributed to Ancient Egypt by Herodotus and later 19th-century scholars, but other scholars think the Egyptian texts may have been influenced by classical folklore. Over time, the phoenix motif spread and gained a variety of new associations; Herodotus, Lucan, Pliny the Elder, Pope Clement I, Lactantius, Ovid, and Isidore of Seville are among those who have contributed to the retelling and transmission of the phoenix motif. Over time, extending beyond its origins, the phoenix could variously "symbolize renewal in general as well as the sun, time, the Roman Empire, metempsychosis, consecration, resurrection, life in the heavenly Paradise, Christ, Mary, virginity, the exceptional man, and certain aspects of Christian life".^[3] Some scholars have claimed that the poem De ave phoenice may present the mythological phoenix motif as a symbol of Christ's resurrection.^[4]

**

Full article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_(mythology)

It was Egyptian first.

Get your facts straight.

Scott75 · December 28, 2024

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2 hours ago, Scott75 said:

The thing about destinations is that there is generally no end to the ones we'd like to reach. Once one is reached, we strive to reach another :-).

I also agree that people couldn't have imagined back then that people would be fighting over who should use which bathroom and whether some bathrooms should be redesigned. That's the thing about progress- it takes us to places where we have to come up with solutions to novel problems.

As to how far we have to go, as far as we like.

Finally, as to the goal of zero description and having to work on the Irish again, I'm not sure what you mean by the Irish bit, but I -suspect- that the answer is, yes, the Irish issue still needs work too.

I -suspect- that an issue that you are subtly bringing up is whether we should focus so much attention on such issues. I think that's a choice that every individual needs to make for themselves. For now, I think it warrants my attention, but, as has happened in the past, I may stop talking about it if I find that there is something the deserves my attention more.

Yes, if we're on an endless journey to equalize rights, we should stop saying there's so much further to go, since it's meaningless. We're not stopping, then.

If that's the case, are we supposed to focus on such matters with equal intensity at all times?

What is the appetite for political change in such a case?

Should we just keep adding issues to the list forever?

As inarticulate and ignorant as Chuds are, they have stumbled onto something that necessarily requires attention: class consciousness. And that discussion needs bandwidth, at the expense of the debate about, for example, straight people are bigoted for not having sex with trans people...

I decided to do an online search for the meaning of class consciousness. Here's the introduction to Wikipedia's definition of the term:

**

In Marxism, class consciousness is the set of beliefs that persons hold regarding their social class or economic rank in society, the structure of their class, and their common class interests.^[1]^[2] According to Karl Marx, class consciousness is an awareness that is key to sparking a revolution which would "create a dictatorship of the proletariat, transforming it from a wage-earning, propertyless mass into the ruling class".^[3]

Although Marxists tend to focus on class consciousness (or its absence) among the proletariat, the upper classes in society can also think and act in a class-conscious way. As Leonard Fein pointed out, "The very rich have been well aware of their class privilege and have labored mightily to protect and defend it".^[4]^[5] For example, Warren Buffett has demonstrated class consciousness: "There's class warfare, all right... but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."^[6]

**

I assume this is what you're referring to. You say that it requires attention. I suspect you mean you think we should focus more on issues of class?

As to your second argument that we shouldn't have a debate on whether straught people are bigotted for now having sex with trans people, I agree that that's not a subject worth discussing. I think most if not everyone here would agree that who they choose to date generally doesn't involve bigotism, just sexual preferences. Everyone has their own sexual orientation and preferences and as to where that type of thing should be discussed, I think that's best between people who are in a romantic relationship.

Deluge · December 28, 2024

2 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I think this is the first time in this thread that Marxists were even mentioned in this thread. I'm drawn to a recent comment made by Michael Hardner:

I suspect he has a good point here. By the same token, conservative republicans would -also- want to ignore the fact that many in their own party are becoming more accepting, because they then wouldn't be able to frame the issue as a right vs. left affair, but rather one where even members of their own party are becoming more accepting.

Oh, you're talking about the RINO's (Republican In Name Only). Yes, I'm sure most, if not all, of those invertebrates are down for whatever the trannies serve up.

User · December 28, 2024

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

the problem is that we have 2 factions within the U.S. and around the world, one that supports being more supportive of the LGBT community, and one that doesn't. Eventually, I believe that the faction that supports the LGBT community will win, but until then, the struggle continues. This is ofcourse a simplification of sorts, but I think it's the gist of the issue.

Well, now you are on to arguing about a different problem. Define more supportive.

If you are talking about helping them connect with the mental health they need, helping them deal with their mental health so as to avoid suicide, I am all for being more supportive.

So, your ideas of more supportive and mine are likely worlds apart.

Your idea of more supportive here is that I have to be called cisgender and accept nonsensical and absurd definitions of male and female.

Out of the two of us, my notion of more supportive actually helps them.

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Trans people tend to define themselves as men and women. Here is the problem, at least for people like you. You don't accept that a trans woman is a real woman, while others do.

No, that is not my problem at all. That is their problem.

It is only a problem for me in as much as someone like you or them insists I must play along. Nope.

A trans woman is not a real woman. Hence the reason you have to say trans woman.

User · December 28, 2024

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

No, I'm just trying to point out that a good amount of people have already changed their meaning of male and female. You can deny that this has happened, but it's quite clear that it has, and this is reflected in both dictionaries and the law.

No, you agree with this and you are here defending and advocating for it.

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

On the contrary, I think that by including terms like 'cis' in dating apps, it can help people -avoid- finding people who wouldn't be compatible for them.

So... they can call themselves Trans. We already have a word for that.

Yet again, we don't have to relabel 99% of the normal people with something different to accommodate the 1%.

User · December 28, 2024

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Again, they are if some people define terms like male and female to include anyone who identifies as male and female. You seem to want to deny that this is, in fact, how many people define those terms, including myself now, but that doesn't change the fact that they do.

Well, too bad for them. I don't deny that people like you are here pushing this madness. I am soundly rejecting it.

User · December 28, 2024

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

If it were just some "fringe group",

There is no if about it. This is a fringe group. Less than 1% of the population identifies as trans.

User · December 28, 2024

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

The first definition is positive, but the second one is not, and I think we can agree that it's the definition that is most often used. It's for this reason that I think that using this label for trans people is deceiving. There is a lot of talk of gender wars and what I think few realize is that transgender people can be a way to bridge this gap. So instead of terms like "normal" and "abnormal", I think terms like "common" and "uncommon" or "rare" would be better.

No, I do not agree with you nor do I think that is better to use common or uncommon.

However, to the actual point I am making here, it doesn't matter which you use. Normal or common, my point is still the same.

You want to force a change that is unnecessary on the common to accommodate the uncommon. No.

Scott75 · December 28, 2024

On 12/26/2024 at 5:12 AM, Nationalist said:

On 12/26/2024 at 2:54 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/21/2024 at 7:28 AM, Nationalist said:

On 12/21/2024 at 6:47 AM, Scott75 said:

I don't see any hubris in the article I posted. You had asked whether a woman can procreate without a man. I pointed out that if we are defining women as people who identify as women, the answer is yes, so long as one of the women is a biological man- the article proved that.

As to what's to stopping things like the video you linked to from happening, I think the police officer made a pretty compelling case why a person identifying as a cat doesn't work if you're driving a car.

Hubris and social rot.

That's it? I feel like I'm debating with a grade schooler who thinks "I know you are, but what am I" is the way to win a debate -.-

You can feel anyway you like.

True. I can also point out that it's clear that you're pushing your agenda, not listening to what people who disagree with you have to say. I wrote a long post explaining my stance on a subject and all you had to say to it was "Hubris and social rot". It's my hope that one day, agenda pushers like yourself will be a thing of the past and people will listen to each other instead of just insulting those they disagree with in order to silence dissent from their points of view.

Edited December 28, 2024 by Scott75

Scott75 · December 28, 2024

On 12/26/2024 at 10:30 AM, Deluge said:

1. The word "Tranny" fits. It fits because the trannies have gotten aggressive. They've planted their flag at the top of the democrat party and they want the entire planet embracing their agenda. This kind of behavior justifies everything we throw at them.

2. Perhaps, but it's not the first time you've seen it. Point out one democrat who's pushed back against gender identity, pride month, drag queen pole dancing or story hour for kids, or trannies in women's locker rooms.

3. Scott75 is still reeling from Kammie's loss last month. Poor kid...

First of all, I'd like to point out that I think that Michael Hardner's response to your post in post #805 was quite good. Your invective laden response back in post #809, not so much :-p.

Anyway, in response to your first point, I don't quite agree with Mr. Hardner in his belief that this trangender subject doesn't matter, but I fully agree with him that what's needed in this subject (or any other) is for people to be respectful of each other's beliefs.

I fully agree with Mr. Hardner's response to your second point that you're wildly exagerating.

I see from Mr Hardner's comment of your third point that it's changed. I think that's good, it suggests you do realize when you go overboard sometimes. In any case, in response to your new 3rd point, I'm not American, but even if I was and had the capacity to vote, I wouldn't have voted for Kamala. I wouldn't have voted for Trump either. I may well have voted for RFK Jr. if he'd still been on the ballot, but he wasn't, so I may well have decided not to vote at all.

Nationalist · December 28, 2024

6 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

True. I can also point out that it's clear that you're pushing your agenda, not listening to what people who disagree with you have to say. I wrote a long post explaining my stance on a subject and all you had to say to it was "Hubris and social rot". It's my hope that one day, agenda pushers like yourself will be a thing of the past and people will listen to each other instead of just insulting those they disagree with in order to silence dissent from their points of view.

I listened to you...and then informed you of your hubris. Something you can't deny because you actually think you can just change words to suit your desires. Another example of your hubris is your insistence that I am pushing an agenda, when I'm actually pushing back against yours. Is your ideology social rot?

We have drag queens reading rather inappropriate stories and acting lewd in front of little kids. We have surgeons performing grotesque operations on young teens and even pre-teens. It's downright monstrous. I think this alone qualifies as social rot. Don't you?

Scott75 · December 28, 2024

On 12/26/2024 at 10:34 AM, User said:

On 12/26/2024 at 8:32 AM, Scott75 said:

As I've said before, a good amount of people, including myself, have decided to expand our definitions of words like men and women, males and females, to include trans people within those definitions. You may not like the fact that I and others have done this, but we've done this all the same and pretending it hasn't happened just shows that you're in denial of this fact.

We already have a way to know someones biological sex. We call them men and women, males and females.

You're really not absorbing what I'm saying. Anyone who's reasonable who read the post of mine you're responding to would know that. I'll leave you with the following Wikipedia quote for you to ponder over:

**

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

Edited December 28, 2024 by Scott75

Nationalist · December 28, 2024

6 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

First of all, I'd like to point out that I think that Michael Hardner's response to your post in post #805 was quite good. Your invective laden response back in post #809, not so much :-p.

Anyway, in response to your first point, I don't quite agree with Mr. Hardner in his belief that this trangender subject doesn't matter, but I fully agree with him that what's needed in this subject (or any other) is for people to be respectful of each other's beliefs.

I fully agree with Mr. Hardner's response to your second point that you're wildly exagerating.

I see from Mr Hardner's comment of your third point that it's changed. I think that's good, it suggests you do realize when you go overboard sometimes. In any case, in response to your new 3rd point, I'm not American, but even if I was and had the capacity to vote, I wouldn't have voted for Kamala. I wouldn't have voted for Trump either. I may well have voted for RFK Jr. if he'd still been on the ballot, but he wasn't, so I may well have decided not to vote at all.

Uhm...that post 809 is not mine.

People who choose to not vote, have no cause to complain.

User · December 28, 2024

1 minute ago, Scott75 said:

You're really not absorbing to what I'm saying.

My disagreement with your absurd attempts to redefine words in nonsensical ways and then to relabel the vast majority of society unnecessarily is not my not "absorbing" what you are saying.

Once again:

We already have a way to know someones biological sex. We call them men and women, males and females.

Nationalist · December 28, 2024

5 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

You're really not absorbing to what I'm saying. Anyone who's reasonable who read the post of mine you're responding to would know that. I'll leave you with the following Wikipedia quote for you to ponder over:

**

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

What your wiki article says is some people like to pretend they're the opposite gender and insist we partake in their fantasy.

Edited December 28, 2024 by Nationalist

Scott75 · December 28, 2024

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

16 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

On 12/26/2024 at 10:30 AM, Deluge said:

1. The word "Tranny" fits. It fits because the trannies have gotten aggressive. They've planted their flag at the top of the democrat party and they want the entire planet embracing their agenda. This kind of behavior justifies everything we throw at them.

2. Perhaps, but it's not the first time you've seen it. Point out one democrat who's pushed back against gender identity, pride month, drag queen pole dancing or story hour for kids, or trannies in women's locker rooms.

3. Scott75 is still reeling from Kammie's loss last month. Poor kid...

First of all, I'd like to point out that I think that Michael Hardner's response to your post in post #805 was quite good. Your invective laden response back in post #809, not so much :-p.

Anyway, in response to your first point, I don't quite agree with Mr. Hardner in his belief that this trangender subject doesn't matter, but I fully agree with him that what's needed in this subject (or any other) is for people to be respectful of each other's beliefs.

I fully agree with Mr. Hardner's response to your second point that you're wildly exagerating.

I see from Mr Hardner's comment of your third point that it's changed. I think that's good, it suggests you do realize when you go overboard sometimes. In any case, in response to your new 3rd point, I'm not American, but even if I was and had the capacity to vote, I wouldn't have voted for Kamala. I wouldn't have voted for Trump either. I may well have voted for RFK Jr. if he'd still been on the ballot, but he wasn't, so I may well have decided not to vote at all.

Uhm...that post 809 is not mine.

Indeed. I suspect you thought that I was responding to a post of yours. As you can see from the nested quotes, I wasn't.

CdnFox · December 28, 2024

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

First of all, labelling a person, or group of people, doesn't change the person or people regardless of whether the label is taken to be offensive or not.

Of course it does. Certainly within the context of the community they live in and how they interact with it. Don't believe me? Just go ask a n*gger or two.

People don't exist in a vacuum. Their environment and the society they live in plays a huge role in forming who they are so it absolutely does change them.

Quote

Yes, -that- is true.

Oh you mean despite your whining i was right. Imagine that. Yawn.

Quote

Which is probably why some well known institutions have labelled the term tranny to be an offensive and derogatory slur:

That logic doesn't track. Presumably they would label the term offensive because they have determined that it's offensive. And not because offensive interrogatory terms can have an impact on people. It's possible they may look to limit the use of insulting or derogatory terms because of their impact on people but that would not explain why they found that one particular term to be offensive.

You really need to work on your logic and reasoning. A first-year college student should have been able to work out why that didn't follow a logic chain.

However again while that University may feel one way you obviously don't. You have insisted that even offensive and derogatory terms should be allowed if you feel that you like using them. You have utterly insistent that you have the right to be derrogatory and insulting.

Well, that's fine. I tend to agree that people should have that right but if that's the case you can't complain about people misgendering someone or calling them 'tranny' or whatever.

I mean the term IS accurate and it IS more convenient and less cumbersome than 'transgender' right? right?

Quote

I never said that labels are no big deal,

But you did. Only when it applied to people you don't like though I notice.

Quote

No, that's not true. I myself am a cisgender male. I suppose I could say that I'm not a trans male, but I'd rather define myself but what I am, not what I'm not. Perhaps same gender male might work, but cis is definitely shorter.

You can define yourself as Cow dung if you like, but that doesn't give you the right to make that determination for anybody else.

Or if it does, then it gives everybody else the right to decide how they're going to define you

Your biggest problem and your whole debate here is that you want to simultaneously insist that you have the right to determine how other people will be defined, while simultaneously arguing that nobody should have the right to determine who you are or define what you are.

And that would make you a dishonest person. Regardless of what you imagine is swinging between your legs

Deluge · December 28, 2024

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

First of all, I'd like to point out that I think that Michael Hardner's response to your post in post #805 was quite good. Your invective laden response back in post #809, not so much :-p.

Anyway, in response to your first point, I don't quite agree with Mr. Hardner in his belief that this trangender subject doesn't matter, but I fully agree with him that what's needed in this subject (or any other) is for people to be respectful of each other's beliefs.

I fully agree with Mr. Hardner's response to your second point that you're wildly exagerating.

I see from Mr Hardner's comment of your third point that it's changed. I think that's good, it suggests you do realize when you go overboard sometimes. In any case, in response to your new 3rd point, I'm not American, but even if I was and had the capacity to vote, I wouldn't have voted for Kamala. I wouldn't have voted for Trump either. I may well have voted for RFK Jr. if he'd still been on the ballot, but he wasn't, so I may well have decided not to vote at all.

Trannies have the same rights as anyone else. What you want is to give them MORE rights, which is unacceptable.

Deluge · December 28, 2024

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

Indeed. I suspect you thought that I was responding to a post of yours. As you can see from the nested quotes, I wasn't.

It doesn't matter, does it? Your posts are objectionable regardless of who you are debatng.

Scott75 · December 28, 2024

On 12/26/2024 at 10:37 AM, User said:

On 12/26/2024 at 8:14 AM, Scott75 said:

I don't think so, and clearly a lot of other people don't either. It's basically like a recursive acronym, only it's a word instead. As I've said in the past, I think there are other recursive words as well, such as democrat and republican. Ultimately, the way most people identify a democrat or a republican is if they themselves identify as such. Some may ofcourse be sticklers and claim that a democrat or a republican is only such if they are a card carrying member, but most people aren't so strict.

So... its not a "recursive acronym" and yes you are trying to define the word with the word.

Yes, it's not a recursive acronym, but it works in the same way. I've never seen the term recursive word, but I don't see why it can't be coined if it doens't yet exist. All words were created at some point. At this point, this notion you have that -I'm- trying to define these words is just comical. Even the FDA now defines gender as a social construct:

**

In 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) started to use gender instead of sex to avoid confusion with sexual intercourse.^[28] Later, in 2011, the FDA reversed its position and began using sex as the biological classification and gender as "a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual's gender presentation."^[29]

**

Source:

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

In my search for information on all of this, I believe I've found a category for people like you who refuse to recognize this new reality: the anti-gender movement. Quoting from Wikipedia's page on this movement:

**

The anti-gender movement is a global phenomenon that opposes concepts often referred to as "gender ideology" or "gender theory." These terms lack a clear, consistent definition but are commonly used by the movement to critique a range of issues related to gender equality, LGBT rights, and gender studies. Originating in the late 20th century, the movement has drawn support from far-right and right-wing populist groups, conservative religious organizations, and social conservatives worldwide. It views advances in gender inclusion and LGBT rights as threats to traditional family structures, religious values, and established social norms.