Hello

[Joe]

I keep wondering what's wrong with the dictionary.

dictionary does not cover trans ladies

I don't know about French dictionaries, but the English ones do.

[Cunt]

There you go again. Many people have told you how they think about and relate to women, including transgender women, but you don't treat that as legitimate, or trustworthy, or convincing, or comprehensible, and so you have to pretend that people are failing to provide a definition.

On the contrary. The best, clearest and most succinct definition possible on this board, was offered by rainbow. I quoted it in my signature.

Since that definition can include anyone, there isn't really much 'defining', but it IS the best I have from here.

If you want to try to make it clearer, you can, but may be subject to follow up questions.

But all they're failing at is meeting your conditions and/or defining something to your satisfaction. This is a circular game - you ask for something that you have no intention of acknowledging, and then ask again, while all the time chiding others for not providing the very thing you refuse to acknowledge or pretend not to understand.

What is your problem with rainbow's definition?

Stealman my position and I'll tell you.

What 'position'?

Your definition of 'woman' is the same as rainbows. A lot wordier, but it doesn't differ. It CERTAINLY doesn't exclude anyone.

[Brian Peacock]

Stealman it and we'll find out.

[rasetsu]

It CERTAINLY doesn't exclude anyone.

Exclude anyone in practice or in principle?

[Cunt]

Stealman it and we'll find out.

I did.

You are welcome to tell me where I'm wrong, but if you want to exclude some people who have at least one 'x' chromosome, you'll need to be a lot more explicit than others have been.

[Cunt]

For those who treat 'the gays' like a unified alliance under the newest progressive stripey flag...
https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/about

Gays Against Groomers is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization of gay people and others within the community who oppose the recent trend of indoctrinating, sexualizing and medicalizing children under the guise of “LGBTQIA+”
Our community that once preached love and acceptance of others has been hijacked by radical activists who are now pushing extreme concepts onto society, specifically targeting children in recent years.

​

The overwhelming majority of gay people are against what the community has transformed into, and we do not accept the political movement pushing their agenda in our name. Gays Against Groomers directly opposes the sexualization and indoctrination of children. This includes drag queen story hours, drag shows involving children, the transitioning and medicalization of minors, and gender theory being taught in the classroom.



The activists, backed by school boards, government, woke media, and corporations, have been speaking on our behalf for too long. When fighting for equality, our goal was to successfully integrate ourselves into society, but now these radicals aim to restructure it entirely in order to accommodate a fringe minority, as well as seek to indoctrinate children into their ideology. We’re saying NO.



There are millions of gays within the community that want nothing to do with this Alphabet religion and join the fight with parents and concerned people everywhere to protect children. We also aim to return sanity and reclaim the community we once called our own.



The gay community is not a monolith. Those pushing this agenda do not represent or speak for us all, nor do we want to be associated with them in any way. What we are witnessing is mass scale child abuse being perpetrated on an entire generation, and we will no longer sit by and watch it happen. It is going to take those of us from within the community to finally put an end to this insanity, and that's exactly what we're going to do.

inb4 someone tries to dismiss their voice by calling them names...

[Cunt]

Government schools give the results one should expect.

[Brian Peacock]

Stealman it and we'll find out.

I did.

No you didn't - you passed a general judgment by comparison in order to avoid honestly reflect what I've actually been saying on the matter. That's not a stealman.

[Cunt]

Stealman it and we'll find out.

I did.

No you didn't - you passed a general judgment by comparison in order to avoid honestly reflect what I've actually been saying on the matter. That's not a stealman.

Your 'definition' does not exclude any human. How then is it different?

If there is a qualifier (such as persistent identity) that you can't explain, then you might as well just leave it at 'any human'. If you do want to exclude some people from your definition, you haven't said who, or how they are excluded.

[JimC]

Iron-clad categories make little sense in biology. Even the category "human being" becomes fuzzy when examined - an early foetus lacks most of the features of the category "human", and if we go backwards in our family tree there is no magic moment where our ancestors stop being human beings and belong to another species - it is a continuum.

When looking at gender, one can have broad categories of "woman" which include those with odd chromosomal arrangements, as well as those who had male physical attributes at birth, but who fully identify as female in terms of their own psychology and how the act in society. Within this broad category, one can of course have a restrictive set which includes a purely physical set of attributes, including the ability to have babies, for example. Even then, the fuzziness sets in; infant girls cannot have babies (and may not in their future lives if medical conditions or a vow of chastity prevent that). Neither can post-menopausal women, of course.

Trans gender people exist, and deserve to be treated as any other human being. There are certainly tricky areas, which have already been discussed, such as inclusion of exclusion in women's sports, but they are not without solutions. Medical intervention at too early a stage is also a potential problem area. I also find that a minority of somewhat fanatical trans activists go over the top in ideological purity, which does the majority no favours.

[Cunt]

Iron-clad categories make little sense in biology. Even the category "human being" becomes fuzzy when examined - an early foetus lacks most of the features of the category "human", and if we go backwards in our family tree there is no magic moment where our ancestors stop being human beings and belong to another species - it is a continuum.

When looking at gender, one can have broad categories of "woman" which include those with odd chromosomal arrangements, as well as those who had male physical attributes at birth, but who fully identify as female in terms of their own psychology and how the act in society. Within this broad category, one can of course have a restrictive set which includes a purely physical set of attributes, including the ability to have babies, for example. Even then, the fuzziness sets in; infant girls cannot have babies (and may not in their future lives if medical conditions or a vow of chastity prevent that). Neither can post-menopausal women, of course.

Trans gender people exist, and deserve to be treated as any other human being. There are certainly tricky areas, which have already been discussed, such as inclusion of exclusion in women's sports, but they are not without solutions. Medical intervention at too early a stage is also a potential problem area. I also find that a minority of somewhat fanatical trans activists go over the top in ideological purity, which does the majority no favours.

I know you to be empathetic, especially to those 'underdogs' you see being bullied.

So why not have a go at crafting suitable language for a lady to object to cocks in her and her daughters change rooms?

I understand it to be near impossible, under the current rules, but maybe I lack empathy. Brian hasn't tried, and is also good with language and empathy.

Why is this situation so hard to write for?

[JimC]

How often in reality does the "objecting to cocks in the change room" actually happen, or is it just right-wing fear mongering over something that is not a problem in the real world?

[Cunt]

Why not answer? Or am I right about it being too difficult?

[JimC]

The whole "cocks in the change room" thing is simply a fantasy to promote fear.

[Joe]

Especially since we have unisex changing rooms. I don't see how what makes a safe, comfortable unisex changing room wouldn't work for cis/trans changing rooms. It seems like a solvable problem.