Are you a man or a woman?

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

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.

You can have 2 XX chromosomes and your brain still isn't synchronized with your genitalia because they develop at different phases in the development process.

Edited November 2, 2024 by robosmith

[Scott75]

On 10/31/2024 at 9:32 AM, User said:

On 10/31/2024 at 9:27 AM, Nationalist said:

In fact...I believe it only adds to the psychosis.

The sad thing is that many kids grow out of any of this confusion or angst or whatever you want to call it. These evil people want to convert them into being something they are not for their own selfish perversions. 

I agree that some kids grow out of wanting to get surgery and that those who do get it sometimes regret it. That being said, the number of trans people who regret transitioning it is apparently fairly low:

How Often Do People Regret Transitioning? | Slate

As to your notion that there are "evil people" who "want to convert" kids, I believe I did once hear about one or more hospitals who may have profited from transitioning some minor, but it doesn't seem like it's common. Below is an article that I don't agree with on all points, but seems to make a lot of good points regarding an article with a lot of bad references on transitioning:

Transition Regret, Detransition, and Uncertainty | Gideon M-K: Health Nerd

Edited November 2, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

On 10/31/2024 at 11:10 AM, CdnFox said:

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

What I find rather ironic is that I actually agreed with what you're saying above in the very post you're referring to.

However what you said later is that "we" can "choose ".  And i was pointing out and establishing that it's not just a 'choice' that 'we' can make collectively or the like, if it's a 'right' for society then it must be a 'right' for the individual.

I think that perhaps a good way to look at this is whether people should have the right to use the N word for blacks or the F word for gay people. This reminds me of a joke told by Dave Chappelle. I'll let him tell it:

In summation, I think using the N word for blacks, the F word for gays and calling trans men women and trans women men in comedy can work if done right, but in other contexts, not so much. 

On 10/31/2024 at 11:10 AM, CdnFox said:

As far as the workplace scenarios you brought up, it does get tricky. Would I as an employer want each of my employees to have a different pronoun that all of my customers and suppliers were supposed to remember and use when dealing with them personally? Should I get in trouble if I don't enforce that stop doing business with customers that won't use the correct pronoun for the person?

Likewise I don't think it's appropriate or an example of freedom of speech to be demeaning to somebody at the workplace. People shouldn't have to suffer dehumanizing Behavior just cuz they need to earn money and being an employer doesn't mean you have the right to mistreat people. 

I think at the end of the day however, in both cases you have to accept that if what somebody says is true then you have to accept their rights to speak the truth. If you are a biological male and you are currently presenting as a female and identify as such, it is still true to refer to you as a biological male. And to use language appropriate to a biological male. And I don't think people should be penalized for that one way or another. I think if something is objectively true then you shouldn't be penalized for it Unless you can prove that it is being said with deliberate malicious intent to harm.

Our defamation laws already operate on this principle. Basically if something is objectively true it's very very hard to sue somebody for defamation for saying it. Almost impossible in fact. This should be the same. It may make somebody uncomfortable but they should have the right to speak the truth.

Having said that if someone appears to be female or advises me that they consider themselves a female I'm using female pronouns and female language to describe them.

On the other hand if they turn Around and start calling me a white sis male settler, that might just go out the window  

We need to learn common decency and mutual respect again rather than trying to force it by law

You make a lot of good points. I also agree that common decency and mutual respect are very important. I think that when those are applied well, the courts can be avoided, which I think works out best for everyone involved.

[Scott75]

17 hours ago, User said:

18 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

First of all, your definition can't be "THE" definition if other folks are using a different one. Secondly, the fact that you're using the older definition automatically means that it's your own as well.

Oh... do I need to go back to asking why you are admitting to being a Pedophile before you get this?

Your main issue here is that this is not a matter of a single person making up a definition for a word that no one else uses, presumably to offend the person they're using it against. There is now a sizeable group of people who define male and female as people who identify as such. 

17 hours ago, User said:

The fact that some of you are trying to change the term to something meaningless doesn't mean the term doesn't have an established definition.

I don't see why you think that modifying the definitions of terms like male and female to be defined as social constructs rather than biological ones makes the terms meaningless. We can always add biological before the terms if we want to ensure that we're talking about biological males and females.

[Scott75]

18 hours ago, User said:

18 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

On 10/30/2024 at 8:54 AM, User said:

Except, you are not merely wanting to change a definition over time, you want to change it to a fundamentally meaningless one. 

No, that's not true. I and others have simply expanded our definition of males and females to include people who while biologically of a given gender have chosen to identify as the other.

Which... makes it meaningless. 

Go ahead, give me your definition of what a male and what a female is.

Male: Someone who socially identifies as male.

Female: Someone who socially identifies as female.

[Scott75]

18 hours ago, User said:

18 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

For biological purposes, they can still be distinguished by simply preceding the term with biological.

Why do you need to distinguish anyone if the term male and female are not meaningless terms?

A term that is broad does not mean that it is meaningless. However, if one wants to know if someone is -biologically- male or female, simply asking them this question should do the trick. The terms male and female were certainly broad before- they can refer not just to human males and females but to males and females of all sorts of different species. In order to ascertain what species is being referred to, simply adding the species' name before male or female clarifies things. The same principle applies with preceding male and female with whether we're speaking biologically or not.

[Scott75]

18 hours ago, User said:

18 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Another way is by using the term sex instead of gender, though I personally don't favour that approach as sex means something very different than one's biological gender as well.

The problem here is that the people pretending to be male and female also think that term means man and woman. 

No one pretending to be female still identifies as a man. 

This is the underlying dishonesty of this whole argument.

Again, the issue is how we define terms like male and female. A person who defines male and female as people who identify as such isn't "pretending" that a trans male is male, they are included in their definition of the term. The problem only arises when dealing with people who -don't- define male and female this way. I'm personally a cisgender male. In case you haven't heard of the term:

**

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

Anyway, for people who'd like to know if someone is a cisgender male/female or a transgender male/female, one can certainly ask.

 

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

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.

More fluid? You're thinking people should just accept the the warping of perhaps the most important truth of life. And then you think it should be OK to introduce and press this warped idea on kids. That a grown man can claim to be a woman and compete in women's sport. That idea is just not gonna fly.

If some adults wanna be fluid...they can LARP as whatever they like. But do not bring gender-bending to kids or to sport...and do not impose laws such as in England or Canada, which force people to call men...women.

This is a childish idea and a battle that never should have come to pass.

[Deluge]

8 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

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. 

You said wikipedia is uneditable - at least some of it is uneditable. Point out the pages that are uneditable. 

[Deluge]

9 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

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.

 

No, it's indicative of the lgbt agenda. You don't see it because you are steeped in the lgbt agenda, but we see it, and that's why we are calling it out. 

Your idea of acceptance means give in to whatever the left-wing demands. In this case it's the transgender arm of the left-wing. 

But to be quite honest, we are not interested in ANYTHING that the left has to say. We're not interested because the left takes a mile when given an inch. That's why we stand firm with pretty much everything they want. 

Again, dress like a woman, go out on the town, have fun - but when it's time to p*ss, you're going to the men's room to p*ss. As far as children go, it's best to just stay away froom them. 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2024 by Deluge

[Deluge]

9 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

1. I certainly agree that if you want to know someone's biological gender, asking for their gender may not get you that information.

2. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "The correct way to function in society is by a person's sex"?

1. I don't care to know someone's gender because I'm not confused or deliberately trying to redefine society. It's all rather clear over here. 

2. It means we don't make accomadations for gendermandering. We go by biological sex and that's it.  

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

I think that perhaps a good way to look at this is whether people should have the right to use the N word for blacks or the F word for gay people. This reminds me of a joke told by Dave Chappelle. I'll let him tell it:

In summation, I think using the N word for blacks, the F word for gays and calling trans men women and trans women men in comedy can work if done right, but in other contexts, not so much. 

 

Funny enough I think that joke highlights an underlying issue with your example.

Calling a gay person a f@ggot,  you are specifically referring to them in a derogatory term. It's not an accurate term, it's a term that is meant specifically to be derogatory. It's like calling someone a b*tch, you're not ACTUALLY saying they're a female dog.  You're deliberately being derogatory and COMPARING them to one in YOUR estimation. 

The same is true for n*gger.  As the comet points out he's not actually a n*gger, as he understands the word.  It's not an accurate or descriptive term, it's a pejorative that is specifically designed to demean or denigrate someone.

But girl or boy or man or woman is not derogatory at all. It is in fact an accurate descriptor. It is truthful and honest. Which is why the vast majority of people do not mind being referred to that way in the slightest.

The insult comes when you deliberately and with intent claim that a person is something other than what they are in order to be demeaning. For example if you're a male and I call you a man you're not going to be offended, but if I call you a girly man or suggest that you're a woman you might be.

So misgendering someone sort of feels like that because they feel they are one thing and you are claiming that they are something else. But in reality you are being accurate. If they are a woman and you call them a woman even if they identify as a man you have made a true statement. This is completely different than calling someone a f@g or n*gger. 

And I guess that's where I come back to the idea that it should never be punishable to speak the truth. It is not true that every black person is a n*gger, but it is true that every woman is a woman even if they identify as a man. 

Quote

You make a lot of good points. I also agree that common decency and mutual respect are very important. I think that when those are applied well, the courts can be avoided, which I think works out best for everyone involved.

Sure, but I don't think that the court should have any right to have a say in it at all in the first place. Unless someone is able to demonstrate that the offending person is being offending maliciously and has a position of authority over the person involved I don't think there should be any grounds for legal action

[Scott75]

On 11/1/2024 at 12:22 PM, Deluge said:

On 11/1/2024 at 11:57 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

Already responded. Go research the homosexual agenda.

Already did, which I suspect you know, but we're responding to previous versions of our conversation so it can't be helped. That being said, I think getting into it again is useful here for a specific reason, so here goes:

**

"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

 

How does the the homosexual/gay agenda have anything to do with transexual behavior?

Edited November 2, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

On 11/1/2024 at 12:22 PM, Deluge said:

On 11/1/2024 at 11:57 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

Yes. That is the case. lol

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

I suspect the real reason you think I'm being dishonest is because I'm disagreeing with you on one or more points.

Edited November 2, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

On 11/1/2024 at 12:22 PM, Deluge said:

On 11/1/2024 at 11:57 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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.

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. 

If it were so simple, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. As I've already pointed out, not all transgender people have the same agenda, so that part of your argument falls flat. This is ultimately an issue that all Americans, as well as people from other countries will have to deal with. In the U.S., it looks like transgender rights are gaining a significant amount of ground:

https://theconversation.com/better-locker-rooms-its-not-just-a-transgender-thing-74023

https://www.athleticbusiness.com/operations/legal/article/15683897/transgender-students-lawsuit-over-locker-room-access-costs-district-millions

https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/federal-appeals-courts-agree-trans-people-belong-in-schools

https://www.kcur.org/education/2024-06-04/missouri-appeals-court-sides-with-blue-springs-transgender-student-in-4-million-discrimination-case

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/wisconsin-school-district-cant-restrict-bathrooms-trans-student-judge-rcna93471

I for one think that efforts to increase things like gender neutral washrooms is a good one.

Edited November 2, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

On 11/1/2024 at 12:48 PM, Nationalist said:

On 11/1/2024 at 11:35 AM, 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.

This is no longer just about transgender people, if indeed it ever was. It's also about the people who care about them. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the term to denote someone who identifies as the sex they were assigned at birth is cisgender. For someone who identifies as the sex they weren't assigned at birth, it's transgender. It's even made it into some dictionaries according to Wikipedia. Here's the introduction they've made for the term:

**

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.

Related concepts are cisnormativity (the presumption that cisgender identity is preferred or normal) and cissexism (bias or prejudice favoring cisgender people).

**

Source:

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

[Scott75]

On 11/1/2024 at 2:23 PM, Deluge said:

On 11/1/2024 at 12:40 PM, phoenyx75 said:

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.

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

Based on my research, it appears the term they use when determining what they are biologically is transgender, followed by male/female/man/woman/etc.

On 11/1/2024 at 2:23 PM, Deluge said:

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. 

As noted elsewhere, if it's important for some reason to know a person's sex assigned at birth, a transgender person (or someone who knows their biological gender) can simply say they are transgender.

[Scott75]

On 11/1/2024 at 2:23 PM, Deluge said:

On 11/1/2024 at 12:40 PM, 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. 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

Wrong.

What do you think I'm wrong about?

On 11/1/2024 at 2:23 PM, Deluge said:

What's obvious is that cultural marxists are trying to skew reality, and that needs to stop.

I wasn't familiar with the term cultural marxism, so I decided to look it up. Here's what I got from Wikipedia:

**

"Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents Western Marxism (especially the Frankfurt School) as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. The conspiracy theory posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the supposed Christian values^{[note 1]} of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

A contemporary revival of the Nazi propaganda term "Cultural Bolshevism", the contemporary version of the conspiracy theory originated in the United States during the 1990s.^{[6][1][7][note 2]} Originally found only on the far-right political fringe, the term began to enter mainstream discourse in the 2010s and is now found globally.^[7] The conspiracy theory of a Marxist culture war is promoted by right-wing politicians, fundamentalist religious leaders, political commentators in mainstream print and television media, and white supremacist terrorists,^[8] and has been described as "a foundational element of the alt-right worldview".^[9] Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact.^[7][5][10]

**

Source:

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

 

So I guess this is your type of thing?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, phoenyx75 said:

 

The word cisgender (often shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) describes a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth,

if you are trying to say that the word cis or cisgender has NOT become a Pejorative that I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you dishonest right here.

It is used in a demeaning and dismissive way. You might as well argue that n*gger just comes from the word 'negro' so it's perfectly fine.  Or that "f@ggot" just means a short stick.

The term is used pejoratively and often in connection with racist comments.   The term "cis white male" for example is used to basically call all hetero white males subhumans who should be repressed at all costs as they are the source of all evils in the universe. 

 

[Scott75]

On 11/1/2024 at 2:26 PM, User said:

On 11/1/2024 at 12:40 PM, phoenyx75 said:

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.

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.

You're mistaken on all counts. I don't want to change any definitions. Rather, I decided to go with the definitions that are already being used by a fair amount of people in North America. If one needs to know a person's sex assigned at birth, one can simply add cis or trans to male/female/man/woman etc.

On 11/1/2024 at 2:26 PM, User said:

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

 

The definition that a good number of people are now using in North America and elsewhere is that a man/male is someone who identifies as such. Same deal with woman/female.

 

[Scott75]

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

On 11/1/2024 at 11:17 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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

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

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

Did you have a point?

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. 

My point was that Wikipedia didn't mention that gender had a biological component.

[Scott75]

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

On 11/1/2024 at 6:57 PM, 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.

You're right, but as you say, this is when we're talking about biology. There are many definitions of gender. Some conform to what we might call the traditional definition. Here's an example:

**

• noun Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions; sex.

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/gender , The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition

Others don't:

**

• noun The mental analogue of sex: one's maleness (masculinity) or femaleness (femininity). (Also called gender identity.)

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/gender , Wiktonary, Creative Commons

 

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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.

First of all, I think we should get into what is meant by agenda here. If your meaning is "a motive or set of goals", sure. I think people do things to make their lives better, so that could certainly fit. Secondly, people have done more than just try to alter the meanings of words, they've done it time and again since words were first created. Finally, I'd say that it's gone beyond simply being colloqualisms, considering the fact that Wikipedia has no biological component for gender and the Oxford dictionary now includes the term cisgender:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150814051905/http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/june-2015-update/new-words-notes-june-2015/

Based on the fact that more and more youth are identifying as transgender or gender fluid, I think this is a trend that will only increase over time.

[Scott75]

21 hours ago, West said:

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? 

No one is arguing that a woman isn't a thing, as you put it. Rather, what's been established is that different groups of people have different definitions of what a woman is. What we may call the more conservative group defines women as people who were assigned as female at birth. What we can call the more progressive group defines women as adults who identify as women. I think we can can agree that having more than one definition for such a common word can be confusing, but that's just the way things are for now. I suspect that in the future, we'll settle down on a single definition, but as to when that'll be, I don't know.

Edited November 3, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

18 hours ago, robosmith said:

21 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

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.

You can have 2 XX chromosomes and your brain still isn't synchronized with your genitalia because they develop at different phases in the development process.

Can you provide a linked article or something to that effect that posits this?

[robosmith]

11 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

Can you provide a linked article or something to that effect that posits this?

See 9 Months That Made You