The witchhunt continues...

[metis]

What is really being promoted is that we have no will, IMV

But who is going to make that decision for others? you? me? the government?

 

[icehorse]

But this strikes me as either propaganda being spread or something wholly and utterly weird.

I would call this something like a "new, growing trend". It's easy enough to do an internet search.

@anna. - same for you.

I can understand your concern.
But like I said, the current hyper fixation on this has caused trauma to cis women, if the complaints are genuine.
Not every woman looks traditionally feminine. (The criteria of which differs culture to culture) That’s just a fact of biology. So by drawing all this attention and paranoia to the issue, it is resulting in rather nefarious results to actual real life women.
Which, I think we both agree, is not a positive outcome. Right?

I'm lost here. How is this causing trauma for normal women? How is this paranoia? thanks!

 

[icehorse]

Okay, you say this is a "new" fad. Did you post something indicating this somewhere in this thread that I missed? If not, where did you come up with it?

The same way anyone stays current on the news of the world?

 

[SkepticThinker]

XX is XX. Any attempt to make XX an XY, or visa versa, is a lie.

This is why I asked you the questions I did. Because it doesn't appear that you've thought this through nearly enough.

I'm trying to point out to you, that YOU have no idea if someone else's claim about themselves is a 'lie" since you have never investigated their genitals or their DNA makeup, etc., etc.

Do you check the chromosomes of every person you meet?
Do you take brain scans and analyze their DNA?
Do you measure their hormone levels?
Do you check their genitals?
Can you read peoples' minds?
If not, how are you determining it's a "lie?"

Perhaps you now understand how and why my questions are relevant to the discussion about your claim about it being a "lie." You actually have no idea.

You claim you're following the science and then completely ignore all the chromosomal variations that exist. I mean, how many times does it need to be pointed out that biology is messy and not black-and-white, as you seem to think.

I don't need to answer questions beyond answering this one first. All other positions are mute until you can prove me wrong. The other questions are more of a distraction.

My questions are relevant to the discussion we're having. I'm sorry you can't see why.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The same way anyone stays current on the news of the world?

So, no?

 

[icehorse]

A woman is a person who identifies as a woman, a man is a person who identifies as a man.

These are indeed lies spread by extreme activists, and people like you who have drunk the kool-aid, and who are desperate for the chance to do a little virtue signaling.

Society and civilization are NOT infinitely capable of surviving such crap, so you should be careful what dangerous propaganda you spread.

 

[icehorse]

So, no?

Are you saying that you're the arbiter of what's common knowledge and what's not? If so, you can choose to slow down or divert any debate you choose? Get educated maybe?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

These are indeed lies spread by extreme activists, and people like you who have drunk the kool-aid, and who are desperate for the chance to do a little virtue signaling.

How is it a lie? Please show me the stone tablets that enshrine forever the precise, unambiguous, objective definition of a man and a woman.

You are not making an argument. Just saying I am engaging in a "lie", without any basis, and following it up with lots of scary buzzphrases.

I would be very, very careful about telling people they have "drunk the kool aid" when so many of your responses read like they were borrowed straight from far-right YouTube videos.

Remember that thread where you alleged members of this forum were "pro-castration of minors", and when I pushed you very lightly it turned out that NOBODY has ever argued in favour of "castrating minors", but that you were equating "supporting minors having medical access to puberty blockers" with "castration", and you justified this equivalence by providing a source from an anti-trans website that literally claimed that because some of the chemicals used in puberty blockers are also used in some forms of medical castration that the two were basically the same?

Remember that?

THAT'S an actual, demonstrable lie that you engaged in and based an ENTIRE argument and thread around.

Glass houses, stones, etc..

And as for "virtue signalling"... Well, frankly, I think it's pretty obvious you don't know what that means. I am not on social media. My best friend is a trans man. I genuinely believe the things I say, and I in no way engage in virtue signalling. Unlike you, with your "I believe in protecting women and children, that's why I think we should deny trans people's rights" nonsense.

Society and civilization are NOT infinitely capable of surviving such crap, so you should be careful what dangerous propaganda you spread.

Ah yes, the "if you accept this position, it puts CIVILIZATION at risk" argument.

Always a reasonable argument. Totally not what literal fascists do. Every time people have argued it, it has always been 100% true. Yep. And we know this, because civilization ended when black people got rights. Remember that?

Remember that time civilization ended because we re-defined marriage to include same-sex couples? That was a good one.

I remember when civilization ended because prayer was taken out of schools. Took us a while to come back from that one.

Alarmist nonsense and buzzphrases have no place in reasonable debate. Keep it in childish YouTube videos. It's the domain of intellectually stunted Jordan Peterson fans whose entire repertoire of thoughts and arguments come straight from the minds of vacuous grifters, not of reasonable people capable of rational consideration. I know for a fact that you are capable of being in the latter category. So try harder.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

These are indeed lies spread by extreme activists, and people like you who have drunk the kool-aid, and who are desperate for the chance to do a little virtue signaling.

Society and civilization are NOT infinitely capable of surviving such crap, so you should be careful what dangerous propaganda you spread.

Good god you sound like an evangelical simpering over someone telling them that marriage is not in fact one man one woman.

Also, your post is virtue signaling lol. As is every other time when the alarmists drag up that phrase as if they're not injecting their own bigotry under the guise of 'protecting civilization from the extremists!'

But thanks for showing it's not really about protecting women, just about you don't like trans people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that activists are indeed trying to force us to use new definitions. That's very different than the natural, slow moving evolution you're talking about.

This is not a new concept. It is new to the news. And yes "activists" often do that. This is not the first time that the people affected by terminology have actively done so to protect their rights and it probably will not be the last. What is wrong with that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you saying that you're the arbiter of what's common knowledge and what's not? If so, you can choose to slow down or divert any debate you choose? Get educated maybe?

Um no. I'm asking you what your source is for your claim. I.e. What is your claim based on?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would call this something like a "new, growing trend". It's easy enough to do an internet search.

That's because you don't know how far back research and history actually goes.

I'm lost here. How is this causing trauma for normal women? How is this paranoia? thanks!

Because they're cis-women being called men not conforming to conventional female standards. They're being harassed and questioned, they're very identity and self being challenged, denied and called a lie.
And it happens because of jackasses who are very sure of their ability to tell and because they are afraid of a minority. This too has been happening for a long time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

XX is XX. Any attempt to make XX an XY, or visa versa, is a lie.

I don't need to answer questions beyond answering this one first. All other positions are mute until you can prove me wrong. The other questions are more of a distraction.

Who is doing that? When you use a strawman argument it weakens your case.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No. Quite the opposite. Words have different meanings at different times. Like it or not it is not a lie to call a transwoman a woman. As to how does one use it? Correctly hopefully.

I like it. So, for example, if it were a lie to call a transwoman a woman, it would seem to be just as much a lie to call a black woman a woman. I mean, if we're going to separate people into all their several categories at once, we should do it for everybody, in all cases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you see how silly this is? All you have done is state that transwomen are women but you cannot define what a woman is. What makes a transwoman a woman?

Why didn't you read the definitions that I gave and linked/ You really should know what a trans person is. if you do not understand it then you are only arguing against a concept that you do not understand. Or were you just playing silly games? It is a losing debate tactic either way.

 

[crossfire]

I don't believe the bible is true.

I fail to see the relevance. If there is no definition of a woman or man then what does transgender even mean? What makes a transgender man a man?

Don't be silly, there are plenty of definitions of woman and of man.

Is a child born into one family that didn't work out and was then later adopted into a second family a less legitimate member of the 2nd family than a natural-born child of the 2nd family? What makes the adopted child a member of the second family?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My definitions do not matter. It would have been valid if you asked what the current definitions are. But you could have looked that up yourself. Make sure that you check all of them.

What do you think the correct definitions are?

The Cambridge Dictionary has updated its definitions of man and woman, by adding the following (rather than replacing the existing definitions):

Woman: "an adult who lives and identifies as a female even though they have been born as a different sex,"
Man: "an adult who lives and identifies as a male even though they have been born as a different sex."

Then, I think we ought to consider whether we wish to treat others -- even transgendered others -- with respect. If we do (and I certainly do), we should treat them according to their gender identity, not their sex at birth. So, someone who lives as a woman today is called a transgender woman and should be referred to as “she” and “her.” A transgender man lives as a man today and should be referred to as “he” and “him.”

And I, for one, have no difficulty at all with that.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I have done this multiple times, now. Why do you keep asking questions people have answered?

A woman is a person who identifies as a woman, a man is a person who identifies as a man. Broadly, they are designations determined by broad social labels that we self-identify as or with.

Are you going to remember the answer now?

Those are not definitions. If someone identifies as a woman it must mean something to be a woman. There must be some characteristics that women have that they identify with.

If I said I was a cat would you believe me? If yes then why, If no then why?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That's a lie. I have given my definition multiple times, and I have NEVER ONCE "refused" to define the words woman or man.

If you think you are right, why do you feel the need to lie? Is it because your arguments can't stand on their own?

It is not a lie. Your definition is not a definition. You said a woman is a person that identifies as a woman. See my other post as a response to this.

No, because species is a biological category humans apply to animals. It is not a social label that we can identify with or as. But if you personally wish to be CALLED a cat, I don't really care.

I have also answered this question, multiple times. You even EDITED OUT the part my post that explicitly differentiated between identifying as a gender and identifying as a species. Again, why do you have to lie?

Where did I do this?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Those are not definitions.

Yes they are.

If someone identifies as a woman it must mean something to be a woman.

It can, it's just that what it means is very varied and contextual. There is no one thing that renders a person "not a woman", and often these things are entirely personal. So, if you're going to engage the world factually, the best way to define such categories is so allow people to identify as the category themselves.

There must be some characteristics that women have that they identify with.

Identifying as a woman is a characteristic.

If I said I was a cat would you believe me? If yes then why, If no then why?

I have answered this question twice now. I will not address it again.