WestCanMan Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 How the F is "Are you a man or a woman" worth 45 pages? t's actually the longest thread on the from page. Wokism really has taken over the feeble-minded leftist cult. 1 Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth.
User Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: How the F is "Are you a man or a woman" worth 45 pages? t's actually the longest thread on the from page. Wokism really has taken over the feeble-minded leftist cult. This is the hill they want to die on. I hope they keep at it, so we can keep winning elections. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
CdnFox Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 1 hour ago, Scott75 said: I and a good many others believe that it is part of the best way of differentiating between people who identify as the gender they are biologically of a given sex but identify with the opposite gender and those who are biologically of a given sex and identify with the same gender. Surely you can see how much shorter it is to say transgender and cisgender that the long sentence I just made. For a long time a good many people believe that "Nigger' was the best way of differentiating between whites and blacks. So what you're saying is that you and a good many others want the relationship between straights and trans people to be hostile. And that's fair enough, the world is full of racist bigots such as yourself and that's still your right in canada. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/1/2025 at 7:20 PM, User said: On 1/1/2025 at 7:09 PM, Scott75 said: 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". 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. I have also repeated myself many times that many people, including myself, are now defining men and women as people who identify themselves as such. Given the fact that there are biological differences between trans and cisgender men and women, using terms such as trans and cis to denote these differences can be useful in some circumstances. You even recognize this when it comes to trans people, you just seem to dislike the flip side of this, which would be cis people. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) On 1/1/2025 at 7:20 PM, User said: On 1/1/2025 at 7:09 PM, 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. No, we're going around in circles because you refuse 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. Edited January 16 by Scott75 Quote
CdnFox Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 4 minutes ago, Scott75 said: I have also repeated myself many times that many people, including myself, are now defining men and women as people who identify themselves as such. But never given any reason as to why anyone else should give a crap. Or address the fact that the majority of people, including everyone else here, has a different definition and you have never explained why that is invalid. You make a dishonest statement. And then when questioned your proof is that you are repeating the dishonest statement as if somehow that makes it more honest. "I said this dishonest thing before so that means it's now honest". Quote
Legato Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 10 minutes ago, Scott75 said: No, we're going around in circules because you refuse 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. Wikipedia went woke and is now dying a slow death. Using made up terms when real terms already exist is a futile exercise. Anyone who uses these ersatz terms has a obsessive desire to live in a Disney like dream world. Please stop trying to push your dream state onto normal people. Quote
DUI_Offender Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Legato said: Wikipedia went woke and is now dying a slow death. Incorrect, Wikipedia peaked, in terms of editors, in the late 2000s. It's been losing regular editors for years. "Woke" was not even a thing in 2007, at the peak of Wiki. Edited January 16 by DUI_Offender 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/1/2025 at 7:23 PM, CdnFox said: On 1/1/2025 at 6:29 PM, 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? Where? Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/1/2025 at 8:04 PM, User said: On 1/1/2025 at 8:00 PM, Scott75 said: On 12/29/2024 at 11:09 AM, User said: Try actually responding to my comments I did. No, you did not. I suspect it may be best that we agree to disagree on this point. On 1/1/2025 at 8:19 PM, CrakHoBarbie said: On 1/1/2025 at 8:04 PM, 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. Agreed, he could definitely use some work in the self awareness department :-p. 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) On 1/1/2025 at 9:18 PM, Deluge said: On 1/1/2025 at 5:55 PM, CrakHoBarbie said: Ok. So you support the inclusion of all marginalized groups, such as transsexuals? How are trannies not being included? Your language makes it clear you have little respect for transgender and transexual people: ** Tranny is an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual,[1] often specifically a transgender woman.[2] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny Edited January 16 by Scott75 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/1/2025 at 9:23 PM, Deluge said: On 1/1/2025 at 6:37 PM, 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 As I've repeated many times, there are many who now define men and women as anyone who identifies as such. Because of this, I think transforming men's and women's bathrooms into unisex bathrooms may be the best solution. I think it's somewhat akin to getting rid of the "colored" vs. "white" bathrooms back in the segregationist days. There was certainly a part of the population that was quite vocal against that too, but I think at -this- stage, we can all agree that it was the right decision. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) On 1/2/2025 at 7:34 AM, User said: On 1/2/2025 at 3:31 AM, Scott75 said: True, you did not say I was fabricating court cases or Wikipedia articles. Exactly. So start actually responding to the things I say. For the audience, User literally cut out my first sentence, where I made it clear that I -do- respond to what he says. Quoting: **I respond to what you say, you just don't like my responses.** What I said after the sentence you quoted is also rather important: ** You -did- say that I was fabricating a problem, though. I'm just trying to point out to you that the new gender terms are not something I invented, and they are being used in court cases and Wikipedia articles. You can try to deny these new definitions exist all you like, but Wikipedia and court decisions aren't going to just go away because you don't like the fact that they're there. ** Edited January 16 by Scott75 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/2/2025 at 7:42 AM, User said: On 1/2/2025 at 3:26 AM, Scott75 said: What is it you think that I don't believe? I am asking if you believe the definition of male and female you are pushing here. The evidence that these definitions exists is irrefutable. I've pointed this out in the past, but it looks like you need reminding. Here's a good document on the subject from the FDA: https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2025/1/fda-proposes-to-modernize-guidance-on-sex,-gender Quoting from it: ** Both of the new draft guidances have a preference for using “females/women” and “males/men” instead of “women” or “men” alone. The FDA included the following definitions of sex and gender at the start of the draft documents, noting that the terms have evolved into “separate concepts with distinct definitions.” “Sex: A biological construct based on anatomical, physiological, hormonal, and genetic (chromosomal) traits. Sex is generally assigned based on anatomy at birth and is usually categorized as female or male, but variations occur. Variations of sex refers to differences in sex development or intersex traits.” “Gender: A multidimensional construct that encompasses how an individual self-identifies. Gender may be described across a continuum, may be nonbinary, and may change over the course of a lifetime. Gender may or may not correspond to a person’s sex assigned at birth.” ** Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/2/2025 at 11:50 AM, CdnFox said: On 1/2/2025 at 3:26 AM, Scott75 said: 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. If someone says "We should kill the Jews "and you turn around and say "Yes I think we should kill the Jews for sure", then you are absolutely helping to create the problem. Agreed, but that's not what I'm saying at all. Instead, I'm pushing -against- those who discriminate against a given group, in this case, transgenders and transexuals. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/3/2025 at 9:39 AM, Deluge said: On 1/2/2025 at 3:31 AM, Scott75 said: I respond to what you say, you just don't like my responses. True, you did not say I was fabricating court cases or Wikipedia articles. You -did- say that I was fabricating a problem, though. I'm just trying to point out to you that the new gender terms are not something I invented, and they are being used in court cases and Wikipedia articles. You can try to deny these new definitions exist all you like, but Wikipedia and court decisions aren't going to just go away because you don't like the fact that they're there. You are also using the new gender terms as you define yourself as something other than just a man. I define myself as a -type- of man, a cisgender one. There are also transgender men. On 1/3/2025 at 9:39 AM, Deluge said: See, Scott75 thinks he's being impartial through all of this, but he has already taken sides. He has abandoned the biological aspect of this debate and joined the LGBT army in their fight to takeover the narrative. I agree I have taken sides when it comes to the definition of terms like gender, man and woman. I -don't- agree that I have "abandoned the biological aspects of this debate". Far from it. In fact, it's precisely because I think biology is important that I have embraced terms like transgender and cisgender. I also think that cisgender women should have the right to compete in sports where only cisgender women can participate. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/3/2025 at 8:42 PM, User said: On 1/3/2025 at 8:41 PM, Radiorum said: On 1/3/2025 at 8:38 PM, User said: Thinking you are something you are not is definitely a mental problem. Like how you think you are the judge of all humankind? Where have I ever said that? I agree that you didn't say that you think "you are the judge of all humankind", but like others here, you -do- seem intent on trying to ignore the fact that many people have defined men and women as people who identify as such. If you -did- accept this, you wouldn't be able to so blithely say that transgender people who identify as the opposite of their biological gender are something they aren't. 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/3/2025 at 8:49 PM, CdnFox said: On 1/3/2025 at 8:35 PM, Radiorum said: Your definition is not meaningful, since it excludes transgender females The definition of a transgender female is a male. If they want to be called a transgender female then we can certainly look at accommodating that but really if you wanted to find tune it then they would just be transgender. But their biology doesn't change just because they're perception does. A transgender female is a male I -think- we can agree that up until fairly recently, the definition of a male was fairly simple. This has changed, since many people, including myself, now define male as anyone who identifies as a male, with the same being true for females. Thus, a transgender female would be a female, at least gender wise. -Biologically-, they would be male. The fact that you want to ignore the fact that many now separate biological sex from gender doesn't mean that online sources of information and even institutions such as courts and the FDA now follow these new definitions. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) On 1/4/2025 at 9:34 AM, Deluge said: On 1/3/2025 at 8:28 PM, Radiorum said: Yeah, that, too, but what does that have to do with political activism? Political activism is what drives transgenderism. Before it was just an underground thing, now it's f*cking everywhere. Slave owners were quite annoyed when political activists started calling for the abolishment of slavery as well. More recently, many were annoyed when people started calling for legalizing gay marriage. I think almost everyone agrees that the abolition of slavery was a good thing. I suspect you might be one of those who is annoyed at the expanded rights of the LGBT community. In time, I believe that such people will be viewed as former slave owners are viewed now. Time will tell. Edited January 16 by Scott75 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/3/2025 at 8:25 PM, CdnFox said: On 1/3/2025 at 7:10 PM, Radiorum said: Biology supports the existence of transgenderism. Yes, it was recognized as a disorder sometime ago. I agree that it -was- classified as a disorder in the past. It's now called gender dysphoria or gender incongruence. Wikipedia provides some history on all of these terms: ** Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person experiences due to a mismatch between their gender identity—their personal sense of their own gender—and their sex assigned at birth.[5][6] The term replaced the previous diagnostic label of gender identity disorder (GID) in 2013 with the release of the diagnostic manual DSM-5. The condition was renamed to remove the stigma associated with the term disorder.[7] The International Classification of Diseases uses the term gender incongruence instead of gender dysphoria, defined as a marked and persistent mismatch between gender identity and assigned gender, regardless of distress or impairment. Not all transgender people have gender dysphoria.[8][9] Gender nonconformity is not the same thing as gender dysphoria[10] and does not always lead to dysphoria or distress.[11] The causes of gender incongruence are unknown but a gender identity likely reflects genetic, biological, environmental, and cultural factors.[12][13][14] Diagnosis can be given at any age, although gender dysphoria in children and adolescents may manifest differently than in adults.[15] Complications may include anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.[9] Treatment for gender dysphoria includes social transitioning and often includes hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or gender-affirming surgeries, and psychotherapy.[2][3] Some researchers and transgender people argue for the declassification of the condition because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance and reinforces the binary model of gender.[16] However, this declassification could carry implications for healthcare accessibility, as HRT and gender-affirming surgery could be deemed cosmetic by insurance providers, as opposed to medically necessary treatment, thereby affecting coverage.[17] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) On 1/4/2025 at 12:00 PM, CdnFox said: On 1/3/2025 at 8:33 PM, Radiorum said: On 1/3/2025 at 8:25 PM, CdnFox said: On 1/3/2025 at 7:10 PM, Radiorum said: Biology supports the existence of transgenderism. Yes, it was recognized as a disorder sometime ago. New evidence shows that it is not a disorder or a mental illness. That's not quite accurate. Gender dysphoria is definitely a disorder and a mental health issue that interferes with people's ability to lead a normal or healthy life and is still listed as such. Not every transgender person has dysphoria but most do to one extent or another and if they don't then really it's just a personal preference and there's no reason why society should play along with it any more than there is if someone decides they're more comfortable as a furry. It seems you haven't taken society's acceptance, or lack thereof, into account when it comes to gender dysphoria. The issue of societal rejection is not something that is restricted solely to people who are transgender. The personal life of well known actress Chloe Grace Moretz is educational in this regard: ** Moretz has publicly supported LGBT equality.[84] Moretz, who is openly lesbian, also has two gay brothers; Moretz states they had initially tried to "pray the gay away" to appease their community.[85] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloë_Grace_Moretz Edited January 16 by Scott75 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/7/2025 at 9:12 AM, User said: On 1/7/2025 at 8:57 AM, Scott75 said: Telling someone that they seem to have a case of transphobia, that is, that someone is afraid of people who are transgender, is similar to saying that one seems to have a case of arachnophobia, that is someone who is afraid of spiders. I fully admit that I am somewhat afraid of large spiders. I'll even admit that I am perhaps a bit transphobic myself. That being said, I have done my best to overcome this fear. You are not a doctor, this is not a diagnostic therapy session. True, but it doesn't take a doctor to point out that a person seems to have a certain condition. But if you don't think you have a case of transphobia, you're free to explain why you believe this. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/7/2025 at 9:31 AM, Deluge said: On 1/7/2025 at 9:04 AM, Scott75 said: All I'm doing is pointing out words like cisgender and gender identity that have been around for over 3 decades, and that I think they're good additions to the English language. You may not like them and "soundly reject" them, but they won't go away just because of your personal dislike of them. No, what you're doing is pushing the trans agenda. I have yet to see any hard evidence that there -is- a "trans agenda". There are people like me who believe that trans people should be treated with respect though. 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 On 1/7/2025 at 11:25 AM, CdnFox said: On 1/7/2025 at 8:57 AM, Scott75 said: Telling someone that they seem to have a case of transphobia, that is, that someone is afraid of people who are transgender, is similar to saying that one seems to have a case of arachnophobia, that is someone who is afraid of spiders. I fully admit that I am somewhat afraid of large spiders. I'll even admit that I am perhaps a bit transphobic myself. That being said, I have done my best to overcome this fear. Here's the problem with that. Arachnophobia and most of the other phobias aren't just a fear of something. We don't just call anything we're afraid of a phobia. I would not want to be stabbed but nobody would go around saying I have knifophobia. What characterizes a phobia is that it is in irrational fear. Your fear of spiders is irrational, the spiders themselves are actually no threat. Technically, spiders -can- cause harm, but I've never actually been bitten by a spider, or at least not that I'm aware of. So I think there is -some- rationality in being fearful of spiders, though I think that I am probably a bit too afraid of them. I believe that you and some others here have some irrational fear of transgender people, not to mention the new definitions for terms such as gender, male and female. Quote
User Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 5 hours ago, Scott75 said: Agreed, he could definitely use some work in the self awareness department :-p. I am not the one here complaining about making thinks personal like you were with others here. This is why you are an ignorant a$$hole. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
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.