The witchhunt continues...

[icehorse]

I'm not trans, but I am someone who has read the experts, who *overwhemingly" recognize gender identity, gender affirming care and puberty blockers (which have been studied for decades as they've been used extensively with far more cis children than trans.)
That's why you've not been talking about experts but nebulous 'women's fears.'

No, you've read up to a point. Many of these so-called experts are actually activists. And the standards of "gender affirming care" are being reconsidered in many countries whose healthcare is far superior to the USs.

And puuulease - refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Stepping back, I would have to say that if anyone resorts to putting words into their opponent's mouths, that person probably has a weak argument.

Can you make a logical case without resorting to slurs? Can you stick to debating the ideas?

Make no mistake, if you cannot do that, then smart right wingers will rip your arguments apart.

 

[icehorse]

And I don't care if cis women get their fee fees hurt over 'cis' either.

The ONLY thing you're fighting for is to protect the FEEEEEEEELINGs of a tiny number of trans people, correct?

For the NTH FRIGGIN time, I'm in support of protections for trans people. But there is no reason to negatively impact other people's rights in the process.

You - somehow in your infinite wisdom - think that you're smarter than everyone. Get over yourself.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, and its own merit includes where it's coming from and historical and cultural contexts in which it's used. Otherwise it's just reductivism.

Well THERE'S a WHOPPER of a false dilemma.

If you have a good argument, should ought to be able to make it without the use of fallacies. It's this sort of whiny, slurring, horse pucky argument that makes it easy for the right to keep 70 million people in their fold.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But the reality is that they ARE their children, just not their BIOLOGICAL children. They may be different to biological children, but they are STILL their children.

Do you understand why saying a child who is adopted by loving parents is "not really their child" might come off a bit cold? Can you not just say that they ARE their child, but just not their BIOLOGICAL child?

Yes, I do and I have already said that. I know people with adopted children. The reality is if they asked me if that child was born from the mother I would say no. That is reality. Same with trangender people. I will call them whatever they want but that does not mean I believe they are the gender they say they are.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes, that is the most recent definition of a woman in popular usage. The interesting thing for me here is why anybody objects to this. What is it they are resisting and why? It's more than how a word is used. Likewise with this use of the word lie here. What motivates that? These are visceral reactions that suggest that the objector feels threatened or is offended. Is there any other reasonable explanation for why people behave like this? They don't seem to be language purists.

And I disagree with the use because it is useless. I cannot believe anyone accepts that definition. I never said people claiming to be a gender are lying.

When someone claims to be a woman what characteristics are they referring to? If I say I am a table do you think I have the characteristics of a table because I said so? Of course not.

You also seem to be fond of calling people whose language you don't like liars but can't actually identify a lie.

I never called anyone a liar. Please show me where I called anyone a liar. I said many many times the lie I was referring to would be me lying if I said a transgender man was a man. Society pressures people to tell that lie.

Once, there were only guitars. They generated music through resonance. Then, guitars that made sound by sending an electronic signal from a pickup to an amplifier speaker. They were called guitars, too, but now it was necessary to add the word acoustic or electric to be clear. Likewise with the word woman. "Trans" and "biological "do that for us here. "You see those two women over there? One's a biological woman, the other a transexual woman." What does the word woman mean in that comment? Go ahead and define what that word used that way means to the speaker. Not what you mean when the use the word. I presume that you would say something more like, "See what looks like two women there? Only one is a woman" That's a different meaning of the word. It's the biological definition.

I know that words change over time. But there must be characteristics a person is referring to when the say they are a woman. What are they?

No. Do you realize that that is a different question? Now, you're claiming to be a cat, not just feeling like one.

I do. So if I claimed to be a cat would you believe I was a cat because I identify as one?

How's that not a definition? Did you mean not yet in widespread usage? Did you mean that that definition is tautological? If so, I disagree.

Did you mean first definition? There is no real definition if by that you mean that there is only one way the word may be used.

If I pointed to a coffeepot and said that is a microwave would you agree? What if in 10 years everyone was calling a coffee pot and a microwave a microwave. How useful is that? They re two different things called the same thing. Just like a trangenderman and a man are both called men but are not the same thing.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

These are relational terms whose meaning is dependent upon context rather than absolute static terms. For instance, the word man can refer to humanity in general, a general term for an individual, as a reference to specific individual, as a familiar greeting, to reference a specific role, or to specifically reference a male.

I have no problem with this. The point is the word man is used to reference a male as your definition says and a transgender male is a female. They are not men.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You know what, let's just do it your way. We'll label all trans people as inveterate liars and throw them in the can for dishonesty. Then you can be happy again.

I never said any trans person was lying. I never said I wanted then in jail, I never said ay of this. Why do you say I did? Please find where I said those things.

So what are the characteristics of a woman and man?

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, is this?
View attachment 79652

Not enough info.

You answered yes to my post. It has the info. Do tell what makes that person in my post a woman.

Here's a video of Alex..

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Many of these so-called experts are actually activists.

Like, is there an award for 'sounds most like an evangelical'? Though admittedly that one sounds more like climate change deniars than evolution deniers. 'Those so-called scientists are just following an AGENDA.' lol

And the standards of "gender affirming care" are being reconsidered in many countries whose healthcare is far superior to the USs.

And yet WHO ICD-11 and current DSM-V GAC have not deviated just because the US and UK are exceptionally duscriminatory and have a long history of medical discrimination towards all LGBTQ+ , and most countries with aforementioned better healthcare still provide GAC. And none of them say that trans women aren't women.

tiny number

But there is no reason to negatively impact other people's rights in the process.

Yeah, there's such a tiny number of people in same sex relationships, therefore we shouldn't be inconvenienced in any way have our rights stripped by having to call them married!

false dilemma

That's not what false dilemma means. Asking someone to strip all historical context, frame of reference and history from an argument as an appeal to 'own merit' more closely resembles a false dilemma, because it's positing that anything other than this *unnecessary reduction* is unacceptable debate framework.

There should also be an award for 'most likely to misuse logical fallacies.' Or just a general 'listing logical fallacies does not make am argument.'

The rest is just slowly unhinging doors to apologia. Both in the sense that it's shifting blame from bigotry on the right to anyone who doesn't agree with bigotry in "centricism," (scratch a liberal and a conservative bleeds) and also just general tirade qualities.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Not enough info.

You answered yes to my post. It has the info. Do tell what makes that person in my post a woman.

Here's a video of Alex..

Surely you have enough info just by them requesting to be called by she/her pronouns. Would you refuse based on visual assessment, or acquiess because that's what they asked to be called? I'm assuming you don't ask people to drop pants or submit a chromosomal report. I certainly don't because those aren't what make women to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can find ways to protect their rights without damaging the rights of others.

Again, good intentions, but sometimes bad strategies.

What rights o others have been damaged? The right to be an *******? Are you sure that you want to defend a term that was probably deleted by the censorbot?

 

[We Never Know]

Surely you have enough info just by them requesting to be called by she/her pronouns. Would you refuse based on visual assessment, or acquiess because that's what they asked to be called? I'm assuming you don't ask people to drop pants or submit a chromosomal report. I certainly don't because those aren't what make women to me.

Thanks for confirming my point. To be a woman all you have to do is say "I'm a woman" and act like one. Nothing else required.
IMO that's a slap in the face to cis-women and transgenders.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not enough info.

You answered yes to my post. It has the info. Do tell what makes that person in my post a woman.

Here's a video of Alex..

You seem to think that it is just based upon feelings. if it was I could tell. It is a much deeper subject than that. Listening, which is key, to the video indicates that she probably is a she. But only a medical expert in the field that new her could say for sure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for confirming my point. To be a woman all you have to do is say "I'm a woman" and act like one. Nothing else required.
IMO that's a slap in the face to cis-women and transgenders.

No, that is a strawman. You did not understand his post.

This may be a hard rule to go by, but if one followed the rule of "Don't be a jerk without a very good reason" and then you will not have to ask that question about the video you linked. Does it hurt you at all to call her a her?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Thanks for confirming my point. To be a woman all you have to do is say "I'm a woman" and act like one. Nothing else required.
IMO that's a slap in the face to cis-women and transgenders.

It isn't a slap in my face. It literally costs me nothing to refer to them as a woman But you didn't answer my question, Would you refer to the woman I pictured as such? Or would you require her to show some sort of other identification? Before you called her one and treated her as one?

 

[We Never Know]

It isn't a slap in my face. It literally costs me nothing to refer to them as a woman But you didn't answer my question, Would you refer to the woman I pictured as such? Or would you require her to show some sort of other identification? Before you called her one and treated her as one?

If looks like a duck, swims like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its a duck... regardless if it wants to be a swan.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If looks like a duck, swims like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its a duck... regardless if it wants to be a swan.

That is just incredible ignorance and prejudice. What does it cost you to act like a decent human being to others?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If looks like a duck, swims like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its a duck... regardless if it wants to be a swan.

That still doesn't answer my question. Would you or wouldn't you call the person I posted a photo of a woman if she asked you to?

 

[We Never Know]

That is just incredible ignorance and prejudice. What does it cost you to act like a decent human being to others?

I said a few months back I want to be addressed as "your majesty" so put your ignorance and prejudice aside and start addressing me as "your majesty". What does it cost you to act like a decent human being to others?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That still doesn't answer my question. Would you or wouldn't you call the person I posted a photo of a woman if she asked you to?

A little bit of humility helps. This is a complex problem and I know that I do not fully understand this myself and I have at least looked into it. If one is not sure, and if a person has not even looked into it that person definitely should not be sure, then it is wise to not go out of one's way to harm others, no matter how small, if it does not harm oneself.

I could have called the Queen of England "him" if she had requested it before she passed. It does no harm to me, so why oppose that? Calling someone by a term that they are not comfortable harms them.

Sorry, just venting a bit. I know that this does not apply to you and your attitude.