We Never Know
No Slack
Yes.
So..biology books need to be changed to include gender?
But in biology books it is written that it's women who deliver babies. Not men.
Those 19th century biology
books could use updating.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes.
But in biology books it is written that it's women who deliver babies. Not men.
Those 19th century biology
books could use updating.
I'll tell ya...it's like some posters here
deny the existence of some other posters.
I respect people's identity.
The State does respect people's identity.
One of those people.What? Who said that?
Perhaps.So..biology books need to be changed to include gender?
It appears to be an attempt to distract from Sarah's own illegal activities. Get everyone talking about this problem instead of her dipping into state funds to pay a friend $19,000 while on vacation with her in Paris.What a ridiculous waste of time. Seriously, they don't have anything more important to do for the people of the state of Arkansas????
You have to grab the nipples and tweak them. You can milk anything with nipples:Question is, how do you milk a weasel?
Have you heard of retronyms? "a new term created from an existing word in order to distinguish it from the meaning that has emerged through progress or technological development (e.g., cloth diaper is a retronym necessitated by the fact that diaper now more commonly refers to a disposable diaper)."There are males and transgendermales, no 'cis' needed unless the world male confuses you.
Male. Once males were only organisms with Y-chromosomes. Now, there are XX males, and with them, the retronym cis-males, making the original term ambiguous. See above.I know what a male is and what a transmale is. Which confuses you?
Here are a couple to get you started:where are my insults?
You have to grab the nipples and tweak them. You can milk anything with nipples:
Have you heard of retronyms? "a new term created from an existing word in order to distinguish it from the meaning that has emerged through progress or technological development (e.g., cloth diaper is a retronym necessitated by the fact that diaper now more commonly refers to a disposable diaper)."
The word male is ambiguous now. If somebody tells you they are male today, you don't know if they mean cis or trans. Once, skiing meant snow, then came water skiing and with it, the retronym snow skiing. Once, guitars were only acoustic instruments. then came electric guitars and with them, the retronym acoustic guitar. Paper towels. AM radio. Snail mail. Cellular phone. Digital watch. World War I. Whole milk. Instant coffee. Automatic transmission. Classic Coke.
Male. Once males were only organisms with Y-chromosomes. Now, there are XX males, and with them, the retronym cis-males, making the original term ambiguous. See above.
Here are a couple to get you started:
- Your wife went to see her doctor. He told her she had VD and gave himself a shot of penicillin.
- Underestimate you? Don't be ridiculous. That would be impossible.
So how are we supposed to talk about pregnant persons who aren't women, exactly?
Rhetorical question - we'll do it anyway, because this "law" is a walking first amendment violation that won't last the decade.
No, I'm not disrespecting transgender individuals by mis-gendering them. And if the state does it, that's even worse.
Who actually uses these silly words, though? This is political pandering rather than a legitimate concern.
I'm nkt confused. You are the one going on about total ridiculousness with totally fabrictated and bs claim that trans men are calling themselves men but insist you are a cisman.
This has been explained to you how many times and you still can't get it right? That's why people call you a transphobe because you aren't learning, you refuse to learn, but you are keeping up with the insults, lies and misrepresentations.
That's because a trans man is a biological woman.Trans men become pregnant.
What a ridiculous waste of time. Seriously, they don't have anything more important to do for the people of the state of Arkansas????
Fixed.That's because a trans maniswas originally a biological woman.
War? Religious war? My pet rock makes better arguments that are far less saturated in partisan drivel (and I don't have a pet rock)You're simply wrong. This is not natural evolution of language. Yours is an anti-liberal, religious war on language. It's not that we don't understand what you "tell us" - it's that we disagree and will not put up with it. This is a linguistic war you will lose.
You just did by using the word "person" which is sex and gender neutral.Can you describe an example of such a person?
Why insist on erasing entire categories of peoples from existence just because it inconveniences someone's simplistic, black-and-white view of reality? You are aware that one of the tools bigots use to discriminate and punish minority groups is by attempting to control language, right? I deal with the same crap as a Pagan whose theology and religion are countercultural compared to the mainstream - bigots attempting to control language and whining about me and other Pagans "redefining" and "muddying" things by being who we are and practicing our traditions. Flip that. The bigots need to get over it and deal with the fact that human diversity exists. I've lost count of how many game reviews I've read lately where some insecure bigot one starred a game because "oh noes pronouns!"Why muddy the linguistic waters?
I think you meant "male" and "female."Man and woman are biological terms.
"Biology" isn't that simplistic.That's because a trans man is a biological woman.
Of course I did. I do not know what kind of human individual (hence the word "person"), you are talking about. I still don't know, care to clarify your earlier statement?You just did by using the word "person" which is sex and gender neutral.
How is calling a trans woman a trans woman erasing anything? It seems to be the opposite of that. It seems to be acknowledging the existence of a complex reality.Why insist on erasing entire categories of peoples from existence just because it inconveniences someone's simplistic, black-and-white view of reality?
You are aware that one of the tools bigots use to discriminate and punish minority groups is by attempting to control language, right?
Of course, but I'm not one of them. I simply refuse to acquiesce to far left authoritarians attempting language control. This gets back to my second question above: What is wrong with calling a trans woman a trans woman. Doesn't that explicitly acknowledge that diversity exists????The bigots need to get over it and deal with the fact that human diversity exists.
Those are also biological terms. If you're struggling to find words to describe GENDER, you could start with masculine and feminineI think you meant "male" and "female."
"Biology" isn't that simplistic.