Social "A man is a man, and a woman is a woman" - UK PM

[kflo]

You have strained and lied consistently and you even earlier in questioning my motives rather than positions... you admitted to it.

damn, you’ve devolved into someone pretty obnoxious. I didn’t admit I lied, I said I’d give you the benefit of the doubt and a fresh start, something you don’t seem capable of doing.

Why don't you make your best thorough case for why it's better for trans people to get fund ng set aside for women rather than to study their issues and set aside policies and funding for them?



you consider trans-women to be women? weird how in prisons so many of them have more sexual assault on their records. you would think if they were real women it would be identical to women....

As predicted:

"The real danger is that the public are likely to misinterpret them in a way that will create unwarranted hostility toward the minority under the microscope. The fall-out in terms of violence and abuse will, in some cases, be significant."​

Only you are using terms “real woman” or “identical to women”

let's hear your argument for that position as its the most indefensible of arguments from the trans community. i don't consider them women so that's obvious why i insist that it is taking positions and funding away from women. because it factually is and will.

The pie is 100%. If you add “trans women” and “trans men” categories to your pie, you have to take it from somewhere else. It’s a small %.

what is your argument for men are actually women. what do you found your position on specifically?

why do you continually use this language? Trans women are trans women. Your insistence in just calling them men is again puzzling for someone who claims to be so loving to them. They want to present themselves to society as women (and trans men the opposite). They aren’t forced to self identify as trans. Again, do you think they should be forced?

this is the foundational philosophical position on which nearly everything else you say rests. im sure you have way more than "feels" on this. incidentally this is where kathleen stock comes in very handy as she is a philosopher who can assess philosophical claims. she specifically has a degree in "fiction" and so can address whatever argument you are going to come up with for why men are women.

stock isn’t the preeminent expert on the topic you want to present her as. She has her opinion. You want to prop her up because she speaks to you. That doesn’t make her an expert. And again, trans women are not “men” when it comes to opportunity in the workplace. You can’t even acknowledge this because your “they are men” mantra is sacrosanct.

What about trans men? I guess they are women (we’re stuck in binary land) and should be included as women everywhere.

there are quotas being filled by men in the uk that were designed specifically to help women. women have been bumped in place of men taking them. they are set aside for positions in the workplace and in the government. that is taking away from women any way you slice it. look at the gymnastics you have to do to pretend otherwise man....

again, trans women aren’t bumping women. They don’t get any societal benefits of being a man. I don’t even think quotas are a good practice. Just end discriminatory practices and ensure qualified candidates aren’t discriminated against. Trans women, identifying as women in their applications, are not “men” in this context. This is obvious.

your position also lacks compassion and concern for the trans-community as they will face different problems and issues that NEED to be identified and addressed compassionately. your position will actually be a sin of omission in that good that would have and could have come to trans people will not.

Again, they don’t have to self identify as trans. Many don’t want to.

your position will also make it IMPOSSIBLE for corporations and businesses to provide medical insurance for employees. do you actually suggest that corporations not be privy to male and female designations when putting aside funding to insure men and women and varying ages of those men and women.

what are you talking about? My position is that corporations are mostly handling it fine today. YOU are the one saying it needs to change. Lol at “impossible”. They provide medical insurance just fine……

do you actually suggest riding the world of maternity leave for women in the workplace too? have you even thought about this man? how about days off for menopuse and having a period that most quality employers have put in place. ALL of this will be lost if your policies were to be put into place.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I haven’t changed any policies……

your positions will all harm women and trans people. your positions are terribly thought out on many levels.

nah. You seem to be confused as well.

i wont address bathrooms as i have several times and you did NOT read my response. go back and look it up if you want to know.

Then maybe we’re done here if you’re unwilling to discuss critical aspects of how you want things to CHANGE.

 

[Sweater of AV]

"Cis" isn't a real term. It's made up gobblygook, to appease the fantasies of mentally ill people. There is just "woman" and "man", with a tiny percentage of "intersex" people. Everything else is pure fantasy.

"Cis" is certainly a real term. "Cis" and "trans" mean "on this side of" and "on opposite/other side of" respectively.

It's also pretty clear many of you haven't taken basic chemistry where "cis" and "trans" are used to describe different orientations of molecules. Loosely speaking, the cis form means two functional groups are on the same side with respect to a particular axis, whereas the trans form mean they are on opposite sides.

It should be pretty clear why people adopted the terminology in the context of the transgender discussion. It certainly wasn't invented for this topic.

 

[Barteh]

Kinda weird this thread is 32 pages. What's there to discuss?

 

[HereticBD]

"Cis" is certainly a real term. "Cis" and "trans" mean "on this side of" and "on opposite/other side of" respectively.

It's also pretty clear many of you haven't taken basic chemistry where "cis" and "trans" are used to describe different orientations of molecules. Loosely speaking, the cis form means two functional groups are on the same side with respect to a particular axis, whereas the trans form mean they are on opposite sides.

It should be pretty clear why people adopted the terminology in the context of the transgender discussion. It certainly wasn't invented for this topic.

Just because you pull a term from one subject to another, doesn't make it any less nonsensical. There are only biological men and biological women, with an extremely tiny percentage of intersex people. The rest is made up nonsense. Cis, Zer, Zip, Zap, Zi, Zork....utter fucking nonsense.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Just because you pull a term from one subject to another, doesn't make it any less nonsensical. There are only biological men and biological women, with an extremely tiny percentage of intersex people. The rest is made up nonsense. Cis, Zer, Zip, Zap, Zi, Zork....utter fucking nonsense.

Again, "cis" is a "real term" that is used in many contexts.

You don't believe the people labeled as "cis" need to be qualified as anything (or something along those lines), which is a much different argument than whether the label itself is "real". Don't be mad at the label being used. It makes complete sense within the context of the discussion. I would get comfortable with it because it's not going anywhere.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

this cant be for real



no idea why the proud boys is trending on twitter today but thats the first thing i seen

 

[idrankyourbeer]

..errr wrong thread

 

[terrapin]

damn, you’ve devolved into someone pretty obnoxious. I didn’t admit I lied, I said I’d give you the benefit of the doubt and a fresh start, something you don’t seem capable of doing.



As predicted:

"The real danger is that the public are likely to misinterpret them in a way that will create unwarranted hostility toward the minority under the microscope. The fall-out in terms of violence and abuse will, in some cases, be significant."​

Only you are using terms “real woman” or “identical to women”


The pie is 100%. If you add “trans women” and “trans men” categories to your pie, you have to take it from somewhere else. It’s a small %.

why do you continually use this language? Trans women are trans women. Your insistence in just calling them men is again puzzling for someone who claims to be so loving to them. They want to present themselves to society as women (and trans men the opposite). They aren’t forced to self identify as trans. Again, do you think they should be forced?



stock isn’t the preeminent expert on the topic you want to present her as. She has her opinion. You want to prop her up because she speaks to you. That doesn’t make her an expert. And again, trans women are not “men” when it comes to opportunity in the workplace. You can’t even acknowledge this because your “they are men” mantra is sacrosanct.

What about trans men? I guess they are women (we’re stuck in binary land) and should be included as women everywhere.

again, trans women aren’t bumping women. They don’t get any societal benefits of being a man. I don’t even think quotas are a good practice. Just end discriminatory practices and ensure qualified candidates aren’t discriminated against. Trans women, identifying as women in their applications, are not “men” in this context. This is obvious.


Again, they don’t have to self identify as trans. Many don’t want to.



what are you talking about? My position is that corporations are mostly handling it fine today. YOU are the one saying it needs to change. Lol at “impossible”. They provide medical insurance just fine……


I have no idea what you’re talking about. I haven’t changed any policies……

nah. You seem to be confused as well.



Then maybe we’re done here if you’re unwilling to discuss critical aspects of how you want things to CHANGE.

you did lie and strawman and judge and you know it. you are just like most trans activists. you are a discredit to trans people. its already a foregone conclusion that you guys have lost the debate. its only a matter of time. people will hear ideas you have like "instead of accurately studying trans-needs we should end special funding for women" and "employers dont need to know what sex a person is in order to provide health insurance" and women are men and men are women literally" in order to see how ill thought out they are and regressive towards women. or that the implications of workplaces not knowing a person gender is the end of maternity leave and other kinds of leave that take into account women's issues.... its like you guys actually hate women or something.

you say i only like stock because she agrees with me rather than deal with the ideas because you have bad ideas. this is shot through most of your arguments and is ANOTHER LIE and strawman. its the very thing you admitted to doing and said you would stop doing only a few posts above.

its all you have because you are a religious zealot touting a faith based position that you cannot defend with reason in a way that will convinced most people. stock and joyce are avoided by trans-activists when invited to debates or else protest the debates violently until they are canceled because they fear the light of reason.

you argue in bad faith.

 

[terrapin]

Again, "cis" is a "real term" that is used in many contexts.

You don't believe the people labeled as "cis" need to be qualified as anything (or something along those lines), which is a much different argument than whether the label itself is "real". Don't be mad at the label being used. It makes complete sense within the context of the discussion. I would get comfortable with it because it's not going anywhere.

have you ever noticed the hypocrisy of trans people calling bigotry if you dont use their preferred pronouns while still insisting on calling people cis who dont want the label land not even asking the "cis" community what their preferred label is?

 

[oldshadow]

if only we had a word for someone who's sex is female. oh, wait..........it's called.............................female......................

for some reason it's reassuring to you to know this is a "woman":

we don't need any further distinction. no words.

If it has a pussy it's a woman. An ugly woman but a woman that has used drugs to deform themselves.

Like this is a woman. And she can probably kick that other woman's ass.

 

[Sweater of AV]

have you ever noticed the hypocrisy of trans people calling bigotry if you dont use their preferred pronouns while still insisting on calling people cis who dont want the label land not even asking the "cis" community what their preferred label is?

No I haven't. To be honest, I don't know very many trans people. I know a few of the terms and just try to be respectful in the rare occasion it comes up.

I'm fairly ignorant on the subject so I have no real opinion one way or the other. The whole thing is quite baffling to me. I'm amazed it's such a contentious topic.

 

[Super_Nintendo]

"Cis" is certainly a real term. "Cis" and "trans" mean "on this side of" and "on opposite/other side of" respectively.

It's also pretty clear many of you haven't taken basic chemistry where "cis" and "trans" are used to describe different orientations of molecules. Loosely speaking, the cis form means two functional groups are on the same side with respect to a particular axis, whereas the trans form mean they are on opposite sides.

It should be pretty clear why people adopted the terminology in the context of the transgender discussion. It certainly wasn't invented for this topic.

dogs and hot dogs are real terms, doesn't mean they can be grouped. cis is a real word but it's used nonsensically by the left.

almost none of the pink haired gremlins claiming trans has a disorder of sexual development. ask those people what being trans means and they'll say they don't conform to gender stereotypes, which literally tells us nothing...

the whole movement is bunk from the get-go.

 

[terrapin]

No I haven't. To be honest, I don't know very many trans people. I know a few of the terms and just try to be respectful in the rare occasion it comes up.

I'm fairly ignorant on the subject so I have no real opinion one way or the other. The whole thing is quite baffling to me. I'm amazed it's such a contentious topic.

I am definitely the same way as far as being respectful of them and wanting them to have basic human rights.

The issue becomes very contentious when it comes to bathrooms prisons, shelters, changing rooms and quotas for women like the UK has and special funding for women that men who claim to be women are having access to.

It is only in these areas that I think a real debate needs to take place and a thorough nuanced discussion has to happen.

 

[Sweater of AV]

dogs and hot dogs are real terms, doesn't mean they can be grouped.

cis is a real word but it's used nonsensically by the left.

As long as you acknowledge it's a real word then that's all that matters. It makes sense contextually but I'm not here to debate whether people think it's used nonsensically by certain groups.

almost none of the pink haired gremlins claiming trans has a disorder of sexual development. ask those people what being trans means and they'll say they don't conform to gender stereotypes, which literally tells us nothing...

the whole movement is bunk from the get-go.

I have no interest in responding to whatever this is.

 

[Sweater of AV]

I am definitely the same way as far as being respectful of them and wanting them to have basic human rights.

The issue becomes very contentious when it comes to bathrooms prisons, shelters, changing rooms and quotas for women like the UK has and special funding for women that men who claim to be women are having access to.

It is only in these areas that I think a real debate needs to take place and a thorough nuanced discussion has to happen.

Yeah I'm sure there are sensitive issues. I hope you all work them out lol. I'm cheering all of you on to arrive at a peaceful resolution.

 

[terrapin]

Yeah I'm sure there are sensitive issues. I hope you all work them out lol. I'm cheering all of you on to arrive at a peaceful resolution.

There are enough people who've been canceled for their views who have had the courage to continue speaking out to the public that I think we are going to correct within 15 years or so.

Transactivists have stated openly that debating anybody who doesn't agree with them 100% is condoning bigotry. In place of open debate they use slander and lies instead.

The more these people speak out, most of whom are women the more people will hear their ideas and come to very sane conclusions.

 

[Super_Nintendo]

I have no interest in responding to whatever this is.

none of the buffoons claiming to be that thing are actually that thing. just because a word exists doesn't mean anyone can claim it.

"i aM a coUch cusHioN. loOk iT uP iT's a rEal wOrD!"

 

[kflo]

you did lie and strawman and judge and you know it. you are just like most trans activists. you are a discredit to trans people. its already a foregone conclusion that you guys have lost the debate. its only a matter of time. people will hear ideas you have like "instead of accurately studying trans-needs we should end special funding for women" and "employers dont need to know what sex a person is in order to provide health insurance" and women are men and men are women literally" in order to see how ill thought out they are and regressive towards women. or that the implications of workplaces not knowing a person gender is the end of maternity leave and other kinds of leave that take into account women's issues.... its like you guys actually hate women or something.

you say i only like stock because she agrees with me rather than deal with the ideas because you have bad ideas. this is shot through most of your arguments and is ANOTHER LIE and strawman. its the very thing you admitted to doing and said you would stop doing only a few posts above.

its all you have because you are a religious zealot touting a faith based position that you cannot defend with reason in a way that will convinced most people. stock and joyce are avoided by trans-activists when invited to debates or else protest the debates violently until they are canceled because they fear the light of reason.

you argue in bad faith.

Dude. We agreed to reset in good faith. I did. You reneged on that. You should look at your own behavior and reactions. You claim to be someone who is of faith, loving, etc, but your behavior often doesn’t align with that. You look at people with different opinions than your own as your enemies, to attack. And yes, lie. You should take a step back and reevaluate. You’ve done this before. There’s not a single actual response to what I’ve said in your reply. And you’ve thrown good faith out the window.

I’ve been parsing out each of your statements and addressing them 1 by 1 as i said i would up front. In response you’ve chosen to do the opposite and instead just misrepresent my points and go scorched earth not addressing honestly or in good faith a single thing I’ve said. THAT is a sign of not having confidence in your position. That’s the path you’ve chosen.

 

[kflo]

none of the buffoons claiming to be that thing are actually that thing. just because a word exists doesn't mean anyone can claim it.

"i aM a coUch cusHioN. loOk iT uP iT's a rEal wOrD!"

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about and just see an enemy on the other side of the political spectrum.

 

[Super_Nintendo]

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about and just see an enemy on the other side of the political spectrum.

you're flailing and projecting. there are two sexes and that's that. birth defects do not create a spectrum. there are eggs and sperm, if you ever discover that third sex cell you'll win a nobel prize.

and notice how there's only TWO options of hormones for "transitioners": testosterone and estrogen.

and only two "surgeries"....dick to fake-pussy and pussy to fake-dick. there's no other combination.

the leftist cult is intellectually empty. their made up definitions have no meaning and you can't force people into a worldview that makes no sense. no matter how you frame it, you cannot invert reality then beat people into submission with it.