Are you a man or a woman?

[User]

4 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

As if trans people were the only ones who were fighting for their rights. You do remember that I'm not trans, right?

Rights?

Calling normal people cis is not a "right"

Nothing I have said has anything to do with what you are... I mean, until you decided to double down on being an ignorant a$$hole, I certainly pointed that out about you. 

Did you need the Wikipedia definition again on that?

[Scott75]

On 12/28/2024 at 12:04 PM, Nationalist said:

On 12/28/2024 at 11:46 AM, 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.

The first time you mentioned hubris, back in your post #482, all you said in your post was "Lol...the hubris of this is fckin' monumental. Your article proves that". In my response to your post, I couldn't grasp that you would somehow think that my article 'proved' this alleged hubris. I thought you must be thinking of something else, so I asked you what you thought my article proved. This time, when you said "monumental hubris", I got your meaning and wrote a lengthy paragraph explaining to you and anyone else reading that I saw no hubris in what I'd said in post #670. Quoting:

**

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.

**

Your only response was "Hubris and social rot". Talk about hubris -.- It's at this point that I think I came to the conclusion that you really weren't listening to what I was saying and were just repeating what you'd said before.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Scott75

[Scott75]

On 12/28/2024 at 12:12 PM, User said:

 

On 12/28/2024 at 12:09 PM, Scott75 said:

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

My disagreement with your absurd attempts to redefine words

I made no attempts. I simply told you of the fact that words such as female have already been given new definitions. Even quoted a Wikipedia entry proving my point. You snipped off the Wikipedia entry, perhaps thinking that this fact would just go away if you snipped it from my quote. But ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.

[Scott75]

On 12/28/2024 at 12:14 PM, Nationalist said:

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

No, that's not what it says. For the audience, who may not have seen the post Nationalist was responding to, this is what the Wikipedia article said:

**

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

[User]

22 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I made no attempts. I simply told you of the fact that words such as female have already been given new definitions. Even quoted a Wikipedia entry proving my point. You snipped off the Wikipedia entry, perhaps thinking that this fact would just go away if you snipped it from my quote. But ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.

Yes, you certainly did make an attempt... and you are the one here pushing it. Unless you are now admitting you don't agree with the definition you provided?

Once again, enough of your dumb games where you are now pretending to be just some observer of this. 

Once again, I am not ignoring anything, I am soundly rejecting it. 

 

[Nationalist]

46 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

The first time you mentioned hubris, back in your post #482, all you said in your post was "Lol...the hubris of this is fckin' monumental. Your article proves that". In my response to your post, I couldn't grasp that you would somehow think that my article 'proved' this alleged hubris. I thought you must be thinking of something else, so I asked you what you thought my article proved. This time, when you said "monumental hubris", I got your meaning and wrote a lengthy paragraph explaining to you and anyone else reading that I saw no hubris in what I'd said in post #670. Quoting:

**

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.

**

Your only response was "Hubris and social rot". Talk about hubris -.- It's at this point that I think I came to the conclusion that you really weren't listening to what I was saying and were just repeating what you'd said before.

That you think your whims can dictate the meaning of words and that you can force this unnatural trap on society is...hubris.

[Nationalist]

38 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

No, that's not what it says. For the audience, who may not have seen the post Nationalist was responding to, this is what the Wikipedia article said:

**

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

You're pushing vapor. Whims. Sexual fantasy. It's not real.

That wiki posts it only serves to amplify the need to dispense with such insanity as soon as possible. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

As if trans people were the only ones who were fighting for their rights. You do remember that I'm not trans, right?

Even worse. You're one of those losers who spent their lives professionally buthurt on behalf of other people who probably never asked you to. You make them look bad and they have to live with the results of your scummy Behavior.

You're a fraud and a sham, and you're surprised no one takes you seriously.

53 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

No, that's not what it says. For the audience, who may not have seen the post Nationalist was responding to, this is what the Wikipedia article said:

**

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

We've seen all your posts kid

You are 100% in the wrong here. You are dishonest and a complete hypocrite.

[Radiorum]

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

That you think your whims can dictate the meaning of words

How dare you, or anyone like you, reduce the very real struggle of fellow human beings to “whims”? Seems you are arbitrarily changing the meaning of the word “whim” here. There is nothing fanciful or capricious in being born in a body that does not coincide with the sex of your brain. But, I understand this is beyond your comprehension.

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

unnatural trap on society

Of course transgenders are born naturally. What other way is there of being born?

What you need to understand is that transgender persons are a part of society, too.

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You're pushing vapor. Whims. Sexual fantasy. It's not real.

You are a victim of your narrow-minded and ignorant reality. But your version of reality is an illusion that calls upon you to disavow the reality of others. It’s a persistent one for you, which only leads me to pity you in your trap.

 

[Radiorum]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You're one of those losers who spent their lives professionally buthurt on behalf of other people who probably never asked you to. You make them look bad and they have to live with the results of your scummy Behavior.

Caring about the welfare of others is never scummy. The efforts of @Scott75 have been honourable, yours have been despicable.

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You're a fraud and a sham, and you're surprised no one takes you seriously.

I take him a lot more seriously than I take you. Nothing you say is grounded in reality. It’s all a tale told by an id1ot, signifying nothing.

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You are 100% in the wrong here. You are dishonest and a complete hypocrite.

I told you to quit talking to yourself.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

How dare you, or anyone like you, reduce the very real struggle of fellow human beings to “whims”?

Well I tend to disagree that it's a whim, given the lack of respect shown here in this very thread as well as everywhere else on the internet for people who aren't transgender by the transgender it is pretty easy to see why many would dismiss them as being trite concerns from ignorant people who are cosplaying. As the saying goes, acts like a clown be treated like a clown.

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

Caring about the welfare of others is never scummy.

Sure it is. There is a massive history of it. From the snake oil peddlers to the religious zealots who used their faith to condone all manner of atrocities in the name of god and the salvation of the souls of others and so on.

Even to this day there is a crap ton of money to be made from poverty. The clintons make several million a year thanks to their charities.

Quote

The efforts of @Scott75 have been honourable, yours have been despicable.

You're the same person and you've got that backwards. He's a disgusting leech on society attempting to pass off his incredible hypocrisy in virtue signaling as caring. We are all diminished for having had listened to him in the first place.

 

Quote

I take him a lot more seriously than I take you.

That's more of a negative comment about you than me.

And I'm still pretty sure you're the same people. Some of the writing similarities between you and the phoenix and that twit are a little hard to dismiss, although you do it less so I'm less 100% sure that I am about the other two accounts

 

Quote

Nothing you say is grounded in reality. It’s all a tale told by an id1ot, signifying nothing.

one of your telltale giveaways that you know you're in the wrong is you begin quoting other people. I see that today is no exception

Quote

I told you to quit talking to yourself.

Ahaha! Ha! haaa. (so much clever!)

Yeah, if that's the best you can come up with, say hi to your 3rd grade teacher from me when you go back to school  

 

[Radiorum]

@CdnFox Nothing but insults? How sad it must be to be you.

[User]

2 hours ago, Radiorum said:

How dare you, or anyone like you, reduce the very real struggle of fellow human beings to “whims”? Seems you are arbitrarily changing the meaning of the word “whim” here. There is nothing fanciful or capricious in being born in a body that does not coincide with the sex of your brain. But, I understand this is beyond your comprehension.

Yet again, your notion that there is a sex of the brain separate from the body is absurd nonsense. I have soundly defeated all your attempts to defend this garbage. 

It is absurd on its face. 

 

[Radiorum]

3 minutes ago, User said:

I have soundly defeated all your attempts to defend this garbage. 

Lol. Yep, what was I saying about your reality being an illusion....

[User]

4 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Lol. Yep, what was I saying about your reality being an illusion....

The irony, as you and others are here arguing about the illusion of someone thinking they are something they are not... 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

@CdnFox Nothing but insults? How sad it must be to be you.

You realize you posted nothing but an insult there.

Not to mention the fact that the reply I was replying to of yours was nothing but insults

Is there anything to you other than hypocrisy? I feel like if I took that away you would be a small little pile of dust on the floor.

Go back and play with your Lego Junior

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

Lol. Yep, what was I saying about your reality being an illusion....

Nothing but insults radiorum?  

You see why nobody respects you? I'll insult people but i won't complain if i get insulted back. You take this big moral stance of how terrible it is someone insulted you and you do precisely the same thing. 

You could hypocriy for the olympics. 

[Scott75]

On 12/28/2024 at 1:11 PM, CdnFox said:

On 12/28/2024 at 6:46 AM, 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.

Labelling or categorizing people -itself- doesn't change people. Voicing those categorizations can certainly have an effect though. 

On 12/28/2024 at 1:11 PM, CdnFox said:

On 12/28/2024 at 6:46 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/23/2024 at 2:12 PM, CdnFox said:

Labelling people changes the perception of them in the communities they live in. And that can radically affect their lives.

Yes, -that- is true.

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

You can't seem to stop yourself from insulting people at every turn, can you? Re-reading what you said in your previous post, I see where I missed the point I was trying to make, which is the same one I made in my last response about labelling/categorizations- it's not the labelling and categorization itself which is the issue, but voicing it that can lead to issues.

  

On 12/28/2024 at 1:11 PM, CdnFox said:

On 12/28/2024 at 6:46 AM, Scott75 said:

Yes, -that- is true. Which is probably why some well known institutions have labelled the term tranny to be an offensive and derogatory slur:

**

Tranny is an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual,^[1] often specifically a transgender woman.^[2]

During the early 2000s, there was some confusion and debate over whether the term was considered as a slur, was considered acceptable, or a reappropriated term of unity and pride, but by 2017, the term had been banned by several major media stylebooks and was considered hate speech by Facebook.^[3][4]

**

Source:

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

That logic doesn't track.

Let's see your reasoning. Contininuing...

On 12/28/2024 at 1:11 PM, CdnFox said:

Presumably they would label the term offensive because they have determined that it's offensive.

I certainly agree with that. Let's see what else you're saying...

On 12/28/2024 at 1:11 PM, CdnFox said:

And not because offensive interrogatory terms can have an impact on people.

I highly suspect you're mis-using the term interrogatory. Just to make sure we're on the same page, interrogatory means:

**

• adjective Asking a question; of the nature of a question; interrogative.
• noun A written or oral question that must be answered under oath and is asked by a party in a lawsuit of another party or of a potential witness prior to trial.

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/interrogatory

On 12/28/2024 at 1:11 PM, CdnFox said:

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 do have a point in regards to it not explaining why they found that particular term to be offensive.

On 12/28/2024 at 1:11 PM, CdnFox said:

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.

First of all, I'm not sure why you're mentioning a University. The Wikipedia entry I quoted certanly never mentioned any. Here's what it actually said on the term tranny:

**

Tranny is an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual,^[1] often specifically a transgender woman.^[2]

During the early 2000s, there was some confusion and debate over whether the term was considered as a slur, was considered acceptable, or a reappropriated term of unity and pride, but by 2017, the term had been banned by several major media stylebooks and was considered hate speech by Facebook.^[3][4]

**

Source:

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

Now, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the term cisgender:

**

The word cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) describes a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth, i.e., someone who is not transgender.^[1][2][3] The prefix cis- is Latin and means on this side of. The term cisgender was coined in 1994 as an antonym to transgender, and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender.^[4][5] The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique.

**

Source:

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

So, controversial, certainly, but what it is -not- is a derogatory term.

[Scott75]

On 12/28/2024 at 1:11 PM, CdnFox said:

On 12/28/2024 at 6:46 AM, Scott75 said:

On 12/23/2024 at 2:12 PM, CdnFox said:

The reason you want phrases like cis  is to dehumanize and objectify people you disagree with. You don't want them to sound 'normal',  and you want a pejorative to use.

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.

What gives me the right to label people in x or y way is what we might call the tree of society and its branches. In this forum, which could be considered a small branch of society, I've noticed that people are allowed a pretty wide range of ways to label each other, but as I pointed out, on Facebook and other media style books, tranny is a term that has been banned. That is -not- the case for the term cisgender.

But there's another issue here, which is that while the Admins here may be fine with people calling each other all sorts of slurs, most would agree that calling a biological male who identifies as a male a cisgender male is not a slur against that person. 

Edited December 31, 2024 by Scott75

[Scott75]

On 12/28/2024 at 1:46 PM, Deluge said:

Trannies have the same rights as anyone else.

If by rights, you mean the right to be insulted, I suppose that's true. You certainly don't have any reservations in doing that by continuing to call transgender people trannies. Anyway, I found something that a good amount of transgender people are trying to achieve, which I strongly support:

**

A major goal of transgender activism is to allow changes to identification documents to conform with a person's current gender identity without the need for gender-affirming surgery or any medical requirements, which is known as gender self-identification.^[1][2][3] It is part of the broader LGBT rights movements.

**

Source:

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

We may disagree on many things, but we essentially agree that transgender transition hormones/hormone blockers and surgery can be something that people can regret. If people could get the gender identity they want -without- having to do this, I think it could avoid situations of this nature.

[Scott75]

On 12/28/2024 at 1:50 PM, Deluge said:

On 12/28/2024 at 12:19 PM, 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. 

If my posts were so objectionable, I doubt I'd be getting so many responses to them. I believe you yourself said that I am pretty good at refraining from crass insults, which is something that many posters here struggle with.

[Nationalist]

13 hours ago, Radiorum said:

How dare you, or anyone like you, reduce the very real struggle of fellow human beings to “whims”? Seems you are arbitrarily changing the meaning of the word “whim” here. There is nothing fanciful or capricious in being born in a body that does not coincide with the sex of your brain. But, I understand this is beyond your comprehension.

Of course transgenders are born naturally. What other way is there of being born?

What you need to understand is that transgender persons are a part of society, too.

You are a victim of your narrow-minded and ignorant reality. But your version of reality is an illusion that calls upon you to disavow the reality of others. It’s a persistent one for you, which only leads me to pity you in your trap.

 

Oh I dare. In historical terms, this whole gender bending thing is a whim. How do I know this? My birth certificate says "Gender: Male". Same with my kids. Same with my parents and their parents and so on. Same as yours probably as well. Why? Because up until our fine "woke" friends showed up, gender and sex were the same thing. It's only in recent years that there's been a push to redefine gender.

Trannies have been a part of society for a long time. But only recently have they decided they need to...hi-jack the word gender in an attempt to provide scientific grounds for their condition.

Reality is what it is, I'm afraid. You may have your own whimsical ideas about reality, but as you see, the vast majority of people are grounded in reality and will oppose your fantasy that you can make up your own reality. In other words...

Your whimsical ideas force you to p1ss into a windstorm.

[User]

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

If my posts were so objectionable, I doubt I'd be getting so many responses to them. I believe you yourself said that I am pretty good at refraining from crass insults, which is something that many posters here struggle with.

Comparing folks to the KKK and accusing others of transphobia, you don't get to pretend like you are above the fray anymore.

You have doubled and tripled down on that. 

Because you are an ignorant a$$hole. 

Do you need the Wikipedia definition on that again?

[Deluge]

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

If by rights, you mean the right to be insulted, I suppose that's true. You certainly don't have any reservations in doing that by continuing to call transgender people trannies. Anyway, I found something that a good amount of transgender people are trying to achieve, which I strongly support:

**

A major goal of transgender activism is to allow changes to identification documents to conform with a person's current gender identity without the need for gender-affirming surgery or any medical requirements, which is known as gender self-identification.^[1][2][3] It is part of the broader LGBT rights movements.

**

Source:

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

We may disagree on many things, but we essentially agree that transgender transition hormones/hormone blockers and surgery can be something that people can regret. If people could get the gender identity they want -without- having to do this, I think it could avoid situations of this nature.

Feeding the gender fantasy is never a good idea. It's best to identify all human beings by their sex: men and women, boys and girls - just like all societies have done throughout human history. 

Trannies can truly go to hell on this one. 

[Deluge]

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

If my posts were so objectionable, I doubt I'd be getting so many responses to them. I believe you yourself said that I am pretty good at refraining from crass insults, which is something that many posters here struggle with.

You're getting responses because transsexualism has gotten so pervasive. MAGA means Make America Great AGAIN. The tranny agenda is part of the reason America hasn't been great, so now we have to fix that.