User Posted December 31, 2024 Report Posted December 31, 2024 4 hours ago, Scott75 said: Anyway, I found something that a good amount of transgender people are trying to achieve, which I strongly support: Nope. A drivers license is an official government document to identify someone as what they actually are, not what they think they are. They should not be abused to play into the mental issues of people. Same goes for other official government documentation, like birth certificates. Quote
User Posted December 31, 2024 Report Posted December 31, 2024 4 hours ago, Scott75 said: That is -not- the case for the term cisgender. Not according to Elon Musk on X. Quote
CdnFox Posted December 31, 2024 Report Posted December 31, 2024 12 hours ago, Scott75 said: Labelling or categorizing people -itself- doesn't change people. Voicing those categorizations can certainly have an effect though. Sure it does. How people see themselves is greatly influenced by how others see them or label them. If you're trying to claim that if we seal someone in a room with zero contact with the outside world it woudln't affect them then maybe... but that doesn't happen in the real world does it. Quote You can't seem to stop yourself from insulting people at every turn, can you? Pointing out the truth isn't insulting to normal people it's just you Kid, if you act in a manner that invites derision and insult, then the problem isn't with the person insulting you. As to your claim that cis isn't derogatory, you know you're lying and it's pathetic. Here: f@got noun f@g·ot ˈfa-gət variants or f@ggot : bundle: such as a : a bundle of sticks b : a bundle of pieces of wrought iron to be shaped by rolling or hammering at high temperature f@got verb variants or fagg*t f@goted or f@ggoted; f@goting or f@ggoting; f@gots or f@gg*ts transitive verb : to make a f@ggot (see f@got entry 1) of : bind together into a bundle f@goted sticks so according to you because there is a legitimate use of the word f@ggot there's no way that the word can be derogatory. But everyone in the world knows if i call a guy a f@got i'm being derogatory Hell even our board's language filters wouldn't let me use it The same is true of many words we have definitions for. How people USE words is the key. "Settler" and "colonial" have become pejorative even tho they weren't originally. So is "chug" or even "Karen" And you know what's absolutely accurate and NOT derogatory? Calling a biological man a man. Yet here you are claiming otherwise. The trans say it's very rude to call a man a man just because he's a man if he's asked to be called a woman. And you have no problem with that while you demand cis isn't offensive to straight people. See? If you act like a hypocritical piece of ignorant low brow virtue signaling human garbage as you've just done then it turns out people notice and point out that you're a hypocritical piece of ignorant low brow virtue signaling human garbage. And yet somehow you want it to be THEIR fault Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CdnFox Posted December 31, 2024 Report Posted December 31, 2024 13 hours ago, Scott75 said: 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 So in other words you're claiming that society has some sort of inailable rights granted to it which supersede the rights of people entirely. Two problems with that. First, show me where that is in the constitutional documents? I can show you where individual rights exist in those documents, show me where this "Society Super rights" exist. No where? You're just making it up out of your ass? well. Secondly if you believe in that then you must accept that if a wider 'branch' decides that gays and trans are just degenerates and represses them that's just fine. I mean... you can't argue with society's branches right? It is the most nonsensical argument you've presented to date. Some imaginary authority that doesn't exist grants you the right to be a bigoted prejudiced hater and that's fine. Yeash. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Scott75 Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 (edited) On 12/28/2024 at 3:47 PM, User said: On 12/28/2024 at 3:43 PM, Scott75 said: 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. No, it doesn't work the same way. I suspect you have no idea how a recursive acronym works. Here's the introduction to Wikipedia's definition of the term: ** A recursive acronym is an acronym that refers to itself, and appears most frequently in computer programming. The term was first used in print in 1979 in Douglas Hofstadter's book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, in which Hofstadter invents the acronym GOD, meaning "GOD Over Djinn", to help explain infinite series, and describes it as a recursive acronym.[1] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_acronym If we were to replace the word acronym for word, it'd work the same way. I'll do a definition right now to who you how easy it'd be to substitute acronym for word: ** A recursive word is an word that refers to itself. The term was first used in 2024 in an online forum called repolitics.com, in which a poster named Scott75 pointed out that terms like man and woman could be considered to be recursive words by those who define those words as including transgender people who are biologically of one sex but identify as the opposite gender. ** Edited January 1 by Scott75 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 (edited) On 12/28/2024 at 3:47 PM, User said: On 12/28/2024 at 3:43 PM, Scott75 said: 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. ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement You did try to define the word. No, for a while now, I've been pointing out that a great deal of people -already- define words like man and woman as anyone who identifies as a man or a woman. You're simply a part of the anti-gender movement who, as Wikipedia states, "views advances in gender inclusion and LGBT rights as threats to traditional family structures, religious values, and established norms". On 12/28/2024 at 3:47 PM, User said: I don't care that the FDA defines gender as a social construct. Fine, but you should at least acknowledge the fact for more than the few seconds that it takes for you to say this. If you -did-, then you'd have to admit that I'm not "trying" to define new definitions for gender and gender terms. I'm simply pointing out that they've already been defined in the ways I describe for quite some time now, to the point that even the FDA is using these new definitions. Edited January 1 by Scott75 1 Quote
User Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 1 hour ago, Scott75 said: I suspect you have no idea how a recursive acronym works. And you have no idea how definitions work. And? 1 hour ago, Scott75 said: You're simply a part of the anti-gender movement Once again, you can't put forth logical rational arguments to support your positions, so you have nothing left now but to continually try to make things personal. 1 Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 5 hours ago, User said: Once again, you can't put forth logical rational arguments to support your positions, so you have nothing left now but to continually try to make things personal. Ok. So you support the inclusion of all marginalized groups, such as transsexuals? 1 Quote
User Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 1 minute ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Ok. So you support the inclusion of all marginalized groups, such as transsexuals? You are a strange duck. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 On 12/28/2024 at 6:27 PM, Nationalist said: On 12/28/2024 at 12:19 PM, Scott75 said: On 12/28/2024 at 12:11 PM, Nationalist said: On 12/28/2024 at 12:01 PM, 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. People who choose to not vote, have no cause to complain. 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. I suspect you're playing games now. No, you just got confused and thought I was replying to you in post #890. If you look at the post, it's clear that I was responding to Deluge, not you. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 On 12/28/2024 at 8:31 PM, CdnFox said: On 12/28/2024 at 3:43 PM, Scott75 said: 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. ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gender_movement All your proving is that there is no merit to your attempt to try and change the meaning of words. As I've explained many times before, I am not attempting anything, other than trying to explain to you and others here that terms like man and woman have definitions that you clearly don't like and that I do. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 On 12/29/2024 at 9:22 AM, Deluge said: On 12/29/2024 at 6:10 AM, Scott75 said: No, I'm not saying that at all. No one can change a person's biological sex. I see, so what you're really saying is that there are two types of women: biological women and psychological women, and both are equally women. I've never heard the term "psychological women" before, I think it'd be best to stick to biological women and transgender women. And while many, including myself, now clasify both as women, they are -not- the same. Only biological women can get pregnant, to name perhaps the most important example. But when it comes to many other aspects, they can be thought of as around the same. The larger point here is that even biological men and biological women aren't that different, other than a few things, such as getting pregnant or impregnating. On 12/29/2024 at 9:22 AM, Deluge said: This, of course, would mean that women with penises need to be in the same bathrooms and locker rooms as women with vaginas. And, or course, this is exacty what women with vaginas have been fighting against, but activists like you really don't give a shit what women with vaginas think, because you've been too busy screaming and shedding tears for the women with penises. Do you understand how stupid your thinking is? What I understand is that you, like many others, jump to a lot of conclusions. Women's bathrooms have individual stalls that are walled off from the others, unlike men's bathrooms, which frequently have urinals. Many urinals now have partial walls on both sides of them and I suspect the solution may be to just have individual stalls in bathrooms where both biological sexes could use, thus getting rid of the problem of where people go to the washroom. This concept certainly isn't new: https://shunshelter.com/article/what-is-a-unisex-bathroom Quote
Scott75 Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 On 12/29/2024 at 11:04 AM, User said: On 12/29/2024 at 9:16 AM, Scott75 said: Ah, but that's just it, you see, no one "has to say" trans woman. That's a choice that's made by some, such as yourself. Others choose not to make that choice. This, in turn, can get confusing if people want to differentiate between transgender and cisgender women. Simple solution is to welcome terms like transgender and cisgender. Once again... as I have already said, far fewer people choose to say cisgender. As I have said previously, I have never used the equivalent term for cisgender here in Mexico in the 3 years I've been living here, so I can agree that it's not a term that's used often. What I'm saying is that there are times, more often in North America (I did use the term when I was living in Canada), where I've found that using the term is beneficial, in particular if one is trying to make it clear that someone who is biologically of a given sex identifies as that gender as well. On 12/29/2024 at 11:04 AM, User said: The simple thing to do here is to call trans people trans. Sure, but this is about being able to say that someone is -not- trans without saying "not trans" or, even worse, "normal". On 12/29/2024 at 11:04 AM, User said: On 12/29/2024 at 9:10 AM, Scott75 said: Accepting terms like cisgender is a natural consequence of accepting the fact that many people now include anyone who identifies as a given gender to be that gender. You can dislike this new definition for what gender means, but it doesn't change the fact that many people now use this definition. As a result, if one wants to know if someone is -biologically- male or female, adding a term like cis or trans can help clarify things. Nope. Just call men males and women females and trans people trans. I feel like we're going around in circles here. It all comes down to your refusal to accept that some people believe that terms like cisgender or gender identity are good to use at times. You can disagree with them all you like, but they're still going to use it. This includes large organizations like Wikipedia and even the FDA. Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 7 minutes ago, Scott75 said: As I have said previously... This is not a discussion about how often you use the term. This is you here making an argument for why others should and the made up problem you are using to justify that. 8 minutes ago, Scott75 said: Sure, but this is about being able to say that someone is -not- trans without saying "not trans" or, even worse, "normal". You don't need a way to say that. I have repeated myself half a dozen times now. Men are males. Women are females. Trans are trans. 9 minutes ago, Scott75 said: I feel like we're going around in circles here. It all comes down to your refusal to accept that some people believe that terms like cisgender or gender identity are good to use at times. You can disagree with them all you like, but they're still going to use it. This includes large organizations like Wikipedia and even the FDA. We are only going in circles for as much as you choose to go in circles. Even now, you insist on continuing to play this dumb game, as if the issue is that I refuse to believe people are doing this... Its a strawman argument. The issue isn't that people are doing this. Hell, you are here doing it. Its that I soundly reject your wanting this to be something normalized that others do as well. I soundly reject that and your absurd arguments for why. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 49 minutes ago, Scott75 said: As I've explained many times before, I am not attempting anything, other than trying to explain to you and others here that terms like man and woman have definitions that you clearly don't like and that I do. As we've explained many times before your explanation appears to be a lie. You have no credibility. Further you don't get to explain that terms like men and women have definitions that I must accept that are different than the definitions used by 99% of the world. And further you absolutely don't get to demand that we use your definitions the way you like them and then turn around and insist that we accept your definitions of things like sis whether we like it or not And on top of it all you keep ignoring the facts that people put in your face showing that your logic reason and claims are completely 100% false and just carry on making the same statements and demanding that we accept them. You are an ignorant sub human piece of shit and if you're an example of the trans community then they need to be expelled from our country or ground into the dust. What kind of person do you have to be to come here and demand that only your explanations are valid and that all of us must accept it while at the same time insisting that any definitions we put forward for words are completely irrelevant? You belong with the Nazis and the stalinists and the other great oppressors in the history books. Now run along and play with your essential oils. You're a walking example of why women should not do drugs while pregnant. 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Scott75 Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 On 12/29/2024 at 11:09 AM, User said: Try actually responding to my comments I did. Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 2 minutes ago, Scott75 said: I did. No, you did not. Why? Because you are an ignorant a$$hole. You want to keep pushing making irrelevant personal comments, the gloves are off. I gave you plenty of opportunity to back off and then you resorted to making it personal with me. 1 Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 2 hours ago, User said: You are a strange duck. And you are an ignorant one. I support inclusivity. MAGAs do not. That makes me a better person than you. Do you understand? Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 (edited) 15 minutes ago, User said: No, you did not. Why? Because you are an ignorant a$$hole. You want to keep pushing making irrelevant personal comments, the gloves are off. I gave you plenty of opportunity to back off and then you resorted to making it personal with me. Said the guy who just called @Scott75 a "ignorant a$$hole. I'm constantly amazed at your complete lack of self awareness. Edited January 2 by CrakHoBarbie 1 Quote
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 6 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: And you are an ignorant one. I support inclusivity. MAGAs do not. That makes me a better person than you. Do you understand? I understand the simpleton assertion you are trying to make, sure. Its still wrong. 4 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Said the guy who just called @Scott75 a "ignorant a$$hole. I'm constantly amazed at your complete lack of self awareness. Try reading along next time. The issue is your ignorance. Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 27 minutes ago, User said: Its still wrong. Says who? Your imaginary supernatural master? Do you know why MAGA and religion go hand in hand? Because they both require a disconnect from reality in order to participate. LGBQT folks have been around since day one. That makes their existence every bit as "natural" as heterosexuals. Your ignorance is on full display again. Aren't you embarrassed? Quote
Deluge Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 3 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said: Ok. So you support the inclusion of all marginalized groups, such as transsexuals? How are trannies not being included? Quote
Deluge Posted January 2 Author Report Posted January 2 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: I've never heard the term "psychological women" before, I think it'd be best to stick to biological women and transgender women. And while many, including myself, now clasify both as women, they are -not- the same. Only biological women can get pregnant, to name perhaps the most important example. But when it comes to many other aspects, they can be thought of as around the same. The larger point here is that even biological men and biological women aren't that different, other than a few things, such as getting pregnant or impregnating. What I understand is that you, like many others, jump to a lot of conclusions. Women's bathrooms have individual stalls that are walled off from the others, unlike men's bathrooms, which frequently have urinals. Many urinals now have partial walls on both sides of them and I suspect the solution may be to just have individual stalls in bathrooms where both biological sexes could use, thus getting rid of the problem of where people go to the washroom. This concept certainly isn't new: https://shunshelter.com/article/what-is-a-unisex-bathroom No, the best solution is to just stick with men and women; it's worked for thousands of years, and it will work for however many more thousands of years mankind is running around on this planet. I like the bathrooms just the way they are, and so do a lot of other people. I'm afraid your confused tranny friends are just going to have to continue adapting. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 3 hours ago, Deluge said: How are trannies not being included? You misunderstand. "Included' in her mind means 'obeyed unconditionally without regards to your rights'. I have a copy of "wacko lefty definitions for dummies", i'll send you a copy so you can follow along with her Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Scott75 Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 On 12/29/2024 at 11:12 AM, User said: On 12/29/2024 at 7:37 AM, Scott75 said: In this particular argument, I'm just pointing out that "different groups of people define men and women differently". You can choose to ignore this fact, but the fact remains regardless. So... you don't believe it then? What is it you think that I don't believe? On 12/29/2024 at 11:12 AM, User said: YOU are the one here pushing this argument, you are not merely saying that these things exist. I agree that I'm not merely saying that new defitions for gender terms exist. I've also never denied that I'm in favour of these new definitions. But I certainly never created any "problem" either. There's a big difference between pointing out a problem and creating one. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.