Are you a man or a woman?

[Scott75]

On 10/30/2024 at 9:02 AM, User said:

On 10/30/2024 at 8:43 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 10/27/2024 at 11:45 AM, User said:

On 10/27/2024 at 11:38 AM, phoenyx75 said:

It all depends on how you define gender. Wikipedia's article on gender makes it clear that what gender means depends on who you're asking:

**

Gender includes the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity.^[1][2] Depending on the context, this may include sex-based social constructs (i.e. gender roles) as well as gender expression.^[3][4][5] Most cultures use a gender binary, in which gender is divided into two categories, and people are considered part of one or the other (girls/women and boys/men);^[6][7][8] those who are outside these groups may fall under the umbrella term non-binary. A number of societies have specific genders besides "man" and "woman," such as the hijras of South Asia; these are often referred to as third genders (and fourth genders, etc.). Most scholars agree that gender is a central characteristic for social organization.^[9]

^**

^Source:

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender}

Yeah, the cultural aspects of BEING a man or woman... 

Did you notice that Wikipedia didn't mention biological in its definition?

I did not read anything you posted from there.

That would explain your lack of understanding.

On 10/30/2024 at 9:02 AM, User said:

Did you have a point?

I did, yes. Unfortunately, it requires that you actually read what I posted from Wikipedia.

[Scott75]

On 10/30/2024 at 9:18 AM, User said:

On 10/30/2024 at 8:58 AM, phoenyx75 said:

We were using the word gender in the past, I'm going to stick with that one, especially because gender is recognized by many as having both a social and a biological aspect. I would say that trans people frequently socially interact in ways that are normal for the gender they identify with. They are ofcourse not that gender biologically, but why should that matter?

Because they are not merely trying to act like the gender they are not.

The fundamental issue here is that there are 2 groups of people. People who have expanded their definitions of male/female/etc. to include people who are biologically of one gender but identify with the other, and people who haven't. Ultimately, time will tell what definition prevails. I think it's clear that I think societies should favour the more expansive definition of the terms, and I think it's clear that you think the opposite.

 

[Scott75]

On 10/30/2024 at 10:00 AM, Nationalist said:

On 10/30/2024 at 9:43 AM, phoenyx75 said:

Well, I'm glad that we agree that there's something very wrong with a good chunk of society. Unfortunately, we don't agree on -what- is wrong in this case :-p. You can ofcourse insult people who disagree with your viewpoints, but it's not going to make your beliefs more persuasive. I suggest you focus on the reasons you believe what you believe rather than insulting those who don't agree with your beliefs.

If I may...

Male and female genders are the means for which almost all life on Earth propagates. It is thus a rather important term. It has huge significance. 

If we're talking about the biological definitions of the terms, I agree. When it comes to what a given person identifies with, I think it's less so. I suspect you might agree with me there too.

On 10/30/2024 at 10:00 AM, Nationalist said:

Do you really expect people to just accept this...warping of sexual distinction? Can you not understand how this...silliness make most people uncomfortable?

I'm not warping the biological distinction. I'm just saying that a good amount of people, including myself, have come to accept that some people of a given biological gender have decided that they'd rather identify as the opposite gender. This doesn't change the fact that their biological gender hasn't changed, ofcourse.

On 10/30/2024 at 10:00 AM, Nationalist said:

A word of advice...which you may acknowledge or not, but will always be true.

It is incredibly dangerous to fck with Mother Nature. That cannot meet with "good" results.

I agree. I'm definitely not a fan of genetically modified crops. But we're not talking about that here.

On 10/30/2024 at 10:00 AM, Nationalist said:

Make-up a new word if you must. I might suggest "trannie". But stop warping nature and the words that denote creation itself.

Words are created by people. Their definitions frequently change over time. Now, I will grant the possibility that those who'd like to keep the old definition of male and female may prevail. I doubt it though. I certainly think there is value in knowing the biological gender of people in certain scenarios, the most obvious of which has to do with pregnancies. But in many other contexts, I think society has become much too focused on gender differences when the fact of the matter is, both biological genders have a lot more similarities than they have differences.

 

[User]

16 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

That would explain your lack of understanding.

Not really. I understand your argument, but I vehemently disagree with it. 

18 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

I did, yes. Unfortunately, it requires that you actually read what I posted from Wikipedia.

No worries. 

11 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

The fundamental issue here is that there are 2 groups of people. People who have expanded their definitions of male/female/etc. to include people who are biologically of one gender but identify with the other, and people who haven't. Ultimately, time will tell what definition prevails. I think it's clear that I think societies should favour the more expansive definition of the terms, and I think it's clear that you think the opposite.

The fundamental issue here is that you are pushing a nonsensical definition. 

[Scott75]

On 10/30/2024 at 10:05 AM, Deluge said:

On 10/30/2024 at 9:43 AM, phoenyx75 said:

Well, I'm glad that we agree that there's something very wrong with a good chunk of society. Unfortunately, we don't agree on -what- is wrong in this case :-p. You can ofcourse insult people who disagree with your viewpoints, but it's not going to make your beliefs more persuasive. I suggest you focus on the reasons you believe what you believe rather than insulting those who don't agree with your beliefs.

I insult people when they are dishonest.

You seem to be implying that I'm being dishonest. Is that the case?

On 10/30/2024 at 10:05 AM, Deluge said:

You are trying to normalize transsexualism when transexual behavior is not normal, and that is dishonest.

Can you give an example of what you consider to be "transexual behavior"?

On 10/30/2024 at 10:05 AM, Deluge said:

As I've already stated, multiple times, trannies can dress up however they want as long as they don't try to work their agenda into normal society.

This notion that all transexual people have a common agenda is patently false. Even Matt Walsh, a decidedly conservative guy who created the documentary "What is a woman", which I watched, made it clear that different transexual people have different perspectives. Here's a quote from a trans man that I suspect might surprise you, starting at around the 55 minute mark:

"I never fit, I was an alpha female, a sales executive that kind of just didn't fit in any box. When psychologists or somebody that I was in love with or whatever said that I was in the wrong body, I started to think that, well, maybe I am. I'm a biological woman that medically transitioned to appear like a male through synthetic hormones and surgery. I will never be a man. Is it transphobic for me to tell the truth? Why is it that a couple hundred years from now, if you dug up my body, they're gonna go yeah, that was a woman."

Source:

https://rumble.com/v2rpv4w-what-is-a-woman-matt-walsh-full-documentary.html

The fact that different trans people have different ideas as to what constitutes a man or a woman doesn't really matter in the end though. Ultimately, socities as a whole will decide whether to expand gender definitions or not. I think that generally speaking, dictionaries are the final arbiter. Once you see dictionaries stating that males and females can include people who identify as a given gender but are not necessarily biologically of that gender, I think the general transformation of the terms will be complete, akin to homosexuals being able to marry.

On 10/30/2024 at 10:05 AM, Deluge said:

Now, my advice to you is stop peddling the woke agenda. It's made a pretty jarring run so far, but it has pretty much already peaked.

There are actually a lot of things that are labelled as woke that I don't like. To give an example, I have -not- been happy with recent Disney films, which a lot of people attribute to Disney going "woke". I'm fine with calling it something else, but I think there's a good reason that a lot of people have stopped watching a lot of their stuff. As to the trans movement, I'd say it's complicated. I think they over reacted in some cases, such as their reaction to J.K. Rowling, who created the Harry Potter series of books, when she voiced her views on the definition of a woman. What I think they -should- have done was converse with her more instead of shunning her. More conversation has been had and I think I now understand what happened there more clearly then I did at first. So yes, I think the key when it comes to trans issues is more conversations. I'm certainly doing my part.

Edited November 1, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Deluge]

28 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

1. You seem to be implying that I'm being dishonest. Is that the case?

2. Can you give an example of what you consider to be "transexual behavior"?

3. This notion that all transexual people have a common agenda is patently false. Even Matt Walsh, a decidedly conservative guy who created the documentary "What is a woman", which I watched, made it clear that different transexual people have different perspectives. Here's a quote from a trans man that I suspect might surprise you, starting at around the 55 minute mark:

"I never fit, I was an alpha female, a sales executive that kind of just didn't fit in any box. When psychologists or somebody that I was in love with or whatever said that I was in the wrong body, I started to think that, well, maybe I am. I'm a biological woman that medically transitioned to appear like a male through synthetic hormones and surgery. I will never be a man. Is it transphobic for me to tell the truth? Why is it that a couple hundred years from now, if you dug up my body, they're gonna go yeah, that was a woman."

Source:

https://rumble.com/v2rpv4w-what-is-a-woman-matt-walsh-full-documentary.html

The fact that different trans people have different ideas as to what constitutes a man or a woman doesn't really matter in the end though. Ultimately, socities as a whole will decide whether to expand gender definitions or not. I think that generally speaking, dictionaries are the final arbiter. Once you see dictionaries stating that males and females can include people who identify as a given gender but are not necessarily biologically of that gender, I think the general transformation of the terms will be complete, akin to homosexuals being able to marry.

There are actually a lot of things that are labelled as woke that I don't like. To give an example, I have -not- been happy with recent Disney films, which a lot of people attribute to Disney going "woke". I'm fine with calling it something else, but I think there's a good reason that a lot of people have stopped watching a lot of their stuff. As to the trans movement, I'd say it's complicated. I think they over reacted in some cases, such as their reaction to J.K. Rowling, who created the Harry Potter series of books, when she voiced her views on the definition of a woman. What I think they -should- have done was converse with her more instead of shunning her. More conversation has been had and I think I now understand what happened there more clearly then I did at first. So yes, I think the key when it comes to trans issues is more conversations. I'm certainly doing my part.

1. Yes. That is the case. lol

You are being dishonest because you are using Bill Clinton reasoning to help mainstream transsexualism. 

2. Already responded. Go research the homosexual agenda. 

3. The only agenda Americans focus on is the one causing a fight over women's lockers, and access to other people's children.

It's very simple. Trannies need to adapt to normal society, not the other way around. 

 

Edited November 1, 2024 by Deluge

[Scott75]

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

On 10/30/2024 at 8:58 AM, phoenyx75 said:

We were using the word gender in the past, I'm going to stick with that one, especially because gender is recognized by many as having both a social and a biological aspect. I would say that trans people frequently socially interact in ways that are normal for the gender they identify with. They are ofcourse not that gender biologically, but why should that matter? You seem to think that there is something inherently wrong with acting in a way that doesn't conform to societal norms for a given biological gender, but you haven't actually given a reason for why you think this is wrong.

As to having "full access to kids", I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I do know that some people in the transgender community have kids of their own. Do you think that is wrong too?

I'm going to stick with the word "biological" and biologically speaking, your dear friends, the trannies, are not what or who they think they are.

Actually, when it comes to biology, I think that most agree. I certainly haven't seen any trans people saying that they are -biologically- the gender they identify with. A point of commonality in a sea of disagreements. Those are important.

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

Men are men, women are women, and your confused friends need to stay in the apporpriate bathrooms.  

You're making several assumptions in the above statement. The first is that everyone agrees on the definitions of men and women. It's patently obvious that this isn't the case. The second is your assumption that everyone agrees on the appropriate bathrooms for trans people. Again, it's patently obvious that this isn't the case. Now that I've cleard up the obvious, here's something that you may not know:

Transgender teens with restricted bathroom access at higher risk of sexual assault | Harvard

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

If we're talking about the biological definitions of the terms, I agree. When it comes to what a given person identifies with, I think it's less so. I suspect you might agree with me there too.

I'm not warping the biological distinction. I'm just saying that a good amount of people, including myself, have come to accept that some people of a given biological gender have decided that they'd rather identify as the opposite gender. This doesn't change the fact that their biological gender hasn't changed, ofcourse.

I agree. I'm definitely not a fan of genetically modified crops. But we're not talking about that here.

Words are created by people. Their definitions frequently change over time. Now, I will grant the possibility that those who'd like to keep the old definition of male and female may prevail. I doubt it though. I certainly think there is value in knowing the biological gender of people in certain scenarios, the most obvious of which has to do with pregnancies. But in many other contexts, I think society has become much too focused on gender differences when the fact of the matter is, both biological genders have a lot more similarities than they have differences.

 

Gender denotes biological sex of people. Not how some freaked out group feel about the gender they are.!

Pick another word.

[Scott75]

On 10/30/2024 at 10:16 AM, Deluge said:

On 10/30/2024 at 10:11 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 10/27/2024 at 11:58 AM, Deluge said:

My suggestion would be that the trannies stay in treatment facilities until they feel empowered to act within the appropriate standards of their biological sex. 

The "appropriate standards of their biological sex"? Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Men who dress up like women need to respect boundaries. In other words, they are not welcome in women's bathrooms, nor are they to be in drag around children. 

Again, you're making several assumptions. The first is that trans women are not welcome in women's bathrooms. That only applies in -some- cases. As I've said before, I think that the ultimate solution is to have more gender neutral bathrooms. Gendered bathrooms reminds me a bit of the colored/white bathrooms. There are certainly differences, but there are also some definite similarities.

As to "being in drag" around children, I suspect you mean people who haven't transitioned to the gender they've identified with. Because people who have would always look more like the gender they identify with regardless of how they dress. In any case, can you explain why you don't want people "in drag" to be around children?

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

1. Actually, when it comes to biology, I think that most agree. I certainly haven't seen any trans people saying that they are -biologically- the gender they identify with. A point of commonality in a sea of disagreements. Those are important.

2. You're making several assumptions in the above statement. The first is that everyone agrees on the definitions of men and women. It's patently obvious that this isn't the case. The second is your assumption that everyone agrees on the appropriate bathrooms for trans people. Again, it's patently obvious that this isn't the case. Now that I've cleard up the obvious, here's something that you may not know:

Transgender teens with restricted bathroom access at higher risk of sexual assault | Harvard

1. And you won't see trannies saying that they are biologically the gender they identify with because they don't like that word. In fact they probably hate it. lol

Gender is a word created in the 50's for complex situations that have nothing to do with trannies. In the 21st century, however, left-wingers, including Cultural Marxists, frequently have claimed that the there is a difference in biological sex and "gender identity," despite no difference in basic biology.

Biology is what society needs to be built around, not gender confusion. 

2. Wrong. What's obvious is that cultural marxists are trying to skew reality, and that needs to stop. This country had it completely right for over 220 years. It's only within the last 22 or so years that left-wing psychopaths have infected society with their deranged thinking. I believe MAGA will fix that. 

Edited November 1, 2024 by Deluge

[User]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

You're making several assumptions in the above statement. The first is that everyone agrees on the definitions of men and women. It's patently obvious that this isn't the case.

Wait a minute, you wanted to change the meaning of male and female, now you want to change the meaning of man and woman too. 

This is just a circular argument on your part trying to claim that because you disagree with the meaning of these terms, then that means they don't mean what they do. 

So tell us, what is the definition you want us to use for man/male and woman/female?

You can't tell us, you won't tell us, because you know it is nonsensical gibberish that is meaningless. 

[Scott75]

On 10/30/2024 at 10:39 AM, User said:

On 10/30/2024 at 9:51 AM, phoenyx75 said:

Most if not all word definitions make sense, that's not the issue. The issue is how people are defining terms like male and female. Some, like yourself, are sticking to how it was defined in the past. An increasing number of people are defining it in a way that includes trans people to be in the gender they identify with.

The issue is that your attempt to change the definitions make no sense.

You keep on seeming to think that this is somehow about me. For starters, I'm not even transgender- I support them in their struggle to have people use the gender they identify with, but it's not my personal struggle. Secondly, people have been modifying their definition of terms like male and female for some time now. What this is really about is that people like you don't want to call trans people by the gender they identify with. I admit I'm still not sure why.

Edited November 2, 2024 by phoenyx75

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

I did, yes. Unfortunately, it requires that you actually read what I posted from Wikipedia.

IF that's the case then Wikipedia has a point, not you. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

 Secondly, people have been modifying their definition of terms like male and female for some time now. 

not really. There really is still a definition of male and female that is considered to be accurate and definitive. There's not only one in the dictionary but there is also more importantly a medical one and as we're talking about biology that is certainly going to be definitive.

What you mean to say perhaps is that many people try to alter the meaning of the word to suit an agenda. But unless the phrase is universally accepted then the meeting hasn't changed, it's just a colloquialism amongst the specific group or region.

 

[Scott75]

On 10/30/2024 at 10:40 AM, Deluge said:

On 10/30/2024 at 8:49 AM, phoenyx75 said:

On 10/27/2024 at 11:45 AM, Deluge said:

Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to have kids either, to be quite frank.

Ah, so you are part of these some I was referring to. Why do you believe this?

I'm part of the sane group.  

Alright, so why do you believe that it's insane for homosexuals to be allowed to have kids?

On 10/30/2024 at 10:40 AM, Deluge said:

On 10/30/2024 at 8:49 AM, phoenyx75 said:

Putting what you said previously regarding homosexuals and kids, it seems that you believe that being homosexual and/or trans are wrong behaviours? If so, why?

The homosexual agenda, for starters.

Up until I looked it up just now, I hadn't heard of this "homosexual agenda", also known as the "gay agenda". Fortunately, Wikipedia was around to educate me on the matter. Here's their introduction to the term from their page on Gay Agenda:

**

"Gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda" is a pejorative^[1][2] term used by sectors of the Christian religious right as a disparaging way to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual sexual orientations and relationships. The term originated among social conservatives in the United States and has been adopted in nations with active anti-LGBT movements such as Hungary and Uganda.

The term refers to efforts to change government policies and laws on LGBT rights–related issues. Additionally, it has been used by social conservatives and others to describe alleged goals of LGBT rights activists, such as recruiting heterosexuals into what conservatives term a "homosexual lifestyle".

**

Source:

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

On 10/30/2024 at 10:40 AM, Deluge said:

Are you familiar with the book "After the Ball"?  

I hadn't been until you mentioned it and I looked it up, again on Wikipedia. I now see why you mentioned it. From Wikipedia's introduction of the book:

**

After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s is a 1989 book about LGBT rights in the United States by the neuropsychologist Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. The book has been described as advocating the use of propaganda to advance the cause of gay rights, and has been criticized by social conservatives as an expression of the "homosexual agenda".

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_the_Ball_(Kirk_and_Madsen_book)

[Scott75]

On 10/31/2024 at 6:06 AM, Yakuda said:

  

On 10/21/2024 at 10:18 AM, Rebound said:

On 10/21/2024 at 9:58 AM, Nationalist said:

On 10/21/2024 at 9:31 AM, West said:

What is a woman anyway? 

Such a simple question that Libbies have warped and now can't answer because it exposes their stupidity.

Why are you so obsessed with sex?

Three percent of American teens identify as trans.  I am not convinced that simply telling them they aren’t will remedy their situation. We certainly know that people cannot “pray the gay away.”  
 

Trans people freak me out.  And they probably freak you out.  But that’s our problem, not their problem. They aren’t the way they are because they want us to be offended or disgusted or whatever. 

Why can't you answer a simple question?

Hey Yak. I believe I know you from another forum or 2. Anyway, to be fair to Rebound, he wasn't responding to a question, but rather Nationalist's comment on the alleged simplicity of the question. I think Rebound made some good points, but not the questoin you apparently wanted him to answer, so I'll answer the question I believe you were referring to, that is, West's question of "What is a woman?". I'd say it all depends on who you ask. Some will say that a woman is an adult who was born biologically female. Others will say that a woman is an adult who identifies as a woman. Definitions can be whatever a group of people agree on. The issue here is that there are 2 definitions vying to become the winner. What we can call the old definition, the biological one, and the new one where any adult who identifies as a woman is one.

Edited November 2, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

On 10/31/2024 at 6:10 AM, Yakuda said:

On 10/21/2024 at 1:15 PM, robosmith said:

Figures that you would prefer to keep kids IGNORANT OF REALITY, so they don't discriminate AGAINST YOU. LMAO

Instead you SHAME the ones who FEEL like they're in the WRONG BODY. 🤮

What reality? If people with XX chromosomes aren't women then reality is impossible.

I don't know what reality robosmith was referring to. As to having 2 XX chromosomes, that can certainly determine a person's sex or biological gender, but not necessarily one's gender. Again, it all depends on who's defining the term.

[Scott75]

On 10/31/2024 at 7:31 AM, Deluge said:

On 10/31/2024 at 6:09 AM, phoenyx75 said:

I don't know how Bill Clinton allegedly used the word "is", but there are a fair amount of people who now include trans people into the definitions of the gender they identify with and I personally think that's a good thing. As mentioned elsewhere, I still think it's good to be able to differentiate between people who are biologically of a given gender (what some call "sex") and those who only identify as said gender, such as for sports competitions that wish to only have people of the female biological gender involved in said competition.

This is why you never use the word "gender" to define someone's sexuality - it's too ambiguous. 

The correct way to function in society is by a person's sex. 

I certainly agree that if you want to know someone's biological gender, asking for their gender may not get you that information. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "The correct way to function in society is by a person's sex"?

[Scott75]

On 10/31/2024 at 8:01 AM, Nationalist said:

On 10/31/2024 at 7:56 AM, phoenyx75 said:

What agenda do you believe trans people have and why do you think it's not acceptable?

They are attempting to "normalize" extremely unnatural and confusing sexual kinks with children.

That is completely unacceptable. 

I think the most important issue is the over emphasis on following gender norms. I suspect that if people could be more fluid in their social gender expression they would feel less of a need to change their physical appearance through hormones and surgery.

[Fluffypants]

I think I found a video of Robo which should answer a lot of questions.

 

[West]

10 hours ago, User said:

Not really. I understand your argument, but I vehemently disagree with it. 

No worries. 

The fundamental issue here is that you are pushing a nonsensical definition. 

If a woman isn't a thing, how can we be so sure trans is a thing and they aren't just gays with a fetish or something? 

[Scott75]

On 10/31/2024 at 8:08 AM, Deluge said:

 

On 10/31/2024 at 7:56 AM, phoenyx75 said:

What agenda do you believe trans people have and why do you think it's not acceptable?

It's a political, cultural, Hollywood and commercial attempt to push transgenderism on the American public, but the public has largely rejected it, thank God. 

Still, these scumbags are trying to groom America's kids. Whether you're in on the agenda or just some clueless bystander, the number of teenagers and young adults who identify as transgender has doubled from 2017 to 2022. Don't you find that suspicious? 

It's certainly indicative of -something-. As to what it's indicative of, I'm not sure. I suspect more than one factor is involved. I suspect that it may be partally because of certain chemicals:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7440-gender-bending-chemicals-found-to-feminise-boys/

https://loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00001&segmentID=7

I also suspect that it's partly because it's more acceptable to be trans. I don't necessarily think that's always a good thing. As I've said in the past, I think that if people were more accepting of people bending their social gender expression, there would be less of a perceived need to change one's physical appearance through hormones and surgery.

 

[Scott75]

On 10/31/2024 at 8:46 AM, Deluge said:

On 10/31/2024 at 8:42 AM, phoenyx75 said:

I know for a fact that not all Wikipedia pages can be edited by anyone. Some require you to have already edited a large amount of Wikipedia pages, and I also know that you can be banned from editing Wikipedia pages. I've noticed that Wikipedia's gender article is semi protected, which means:

**

Semi-protected pages like this page cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia). Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest.

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi

 

As to Wikipedia in general, I don't always agree with its articles, but I find that it's generally a good place to start on a variety of topics, in large part because whatever the subject, it always includes at least one source article, which certainly isn't the case for many other articles out there.

And I know for a fact that you are wrong. 

I, personally, have edited a left leaning page and confirmed that the change took place. That was my first and only edit. 

Could you elaborate on what you think I'm wrong -about-? I'm guessing you tried to explain it by referring to you having edited a left leaning page, but I don't see the connection. 

[Scott75]

On 10/31/2024 at 9:14 AM, User said:

Words can mean whatever we want them too!

Yes, they can, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's important to note the "we" part.

[Scott75]

On 10/31/2024 at 9:14 AM, User said:

On 10/31/2024 at 7:03 AM, phoenyx75 said:

So is your argument that trans people all have cases of body dysmorphia before they have surgery? I think this may be true. But then, if someone who's trans undergoes surgery and then feels good about their body, wouldn't that work? Now, I'm not saying that there couldn't be other ways to get them to feel good about their body, but if they're an adult, I think the way they choose should be their choice to make, so long as they're footing the bill. Things get more complicated if the where to foot some or all of the bill, but I'm not sure if that's actually done anywhere.

I am saying that none of this is a "cure"

Making themselves appear to be more like something they are not did not cure them of believing they are something they are not. 

Again, this all hinges on how a given person is defining words like male, female, etc. I think that most would agree that a biological male or female can't turn into the opposite biological gender. But if we're not talking about one's biological gender, it's a different matter.