Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#552 Mar 23 2013 at 11:02 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Rachel wrote:
That is not at all what i am saying.

That was the question that I asked you. Does your concept of labels apply to every word?

Rachel wrote:
That's fine, but everywhere else it's known as a gun. So you can continue calling it a toaster, but you can't say it's not a gun. Because it is. Being a "toaster" doesn't prevent it from also being a "gun".


Exactly. Likewise, a man wearing a wig and a dress is known everywhere else as a man wearing a wig and a dress. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?

Rachel wrote:
This is...not true. For example:
'Tis the truth.

Rachel wrote:
All i had to do was change my name, and say i'm a woman now, and what do you know, even you will refer to me as "she".


I've been referred to as "she" all of the time on this thread, doesn't mean anything. I also referred to people, such as Eske, by the wrong ***. This is the Internet. All we have to go by is your name and what you say.

In any sense, you said that a label is just a word and it doesn't change the thing or concept. So, you can change your name on this forum to "John totallynotagirl Smith" and everything that makes you who you are will remain constant. To argue otherwise insinuates that labels are more than just words.

By your own philosophy, you are wrong. If we are free to create and use any label as we see fit, then what is your beef?

Eske wrote:
Oh, are we there already?

Eske's Law. Thread lock plz.


That was intentional.


Edited, Mar 23rd 2013 7:02pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#553 Mar 23 2013 at 11:23 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Quote:
That was the question that I asked you. Does your concept of labels apply to every word?
For the hundredth time, yes.

Quote:
'Tis the truth.

I dunno, <15% of the people who know i am trans have ever once called me a man or boy, or referred to me as "he" since they found out. And most of those were accidental, quickly followed by a correction and apology. Everyone else has exclusively used words such as "woman", "lady", "girl", and "she". That doesn't seem very wide spread to me.
Quote:
This is the Internet. All we have to go by is your name and what you say.
Yes, and what i've said is that i'm a woman who has a *****. Surely you've read that much? And yet, you clearly still think of me as a woman.

Quote:
By your own philosophy, you are wrong. If we are free to create and use any label as we see fit
You are, but until it becomes widespread (let's say, no less than 50% of the people in a community for it to even be considered), don't be surprised when no one accepts it as valid.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2013 1:24pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#554 Mar 23 2013 at 12:09 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Rachel wrote:
For the hundredth time, yes.
Don't get agitated at me. You're the one bouncing back at forth. If your concept of labels apply to every word, then why do you care about the word? Only if your concept varies per word, will using "***/gender" would matter. The word could be rapist. The result would be the same.

Rachel wrote:
I dunno, <15% of the people who know i am trans have ever once called me a man or boy, or referred to me as "he" since they found out. And most of those were accidental, quickly followed by a correction and apology.


So, that's what this is all about. It has nothing to do with actual definitions or facts, but a personal issue. If what you said were true, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I did not create this issue. You're confusing personal preference/respect with laws,rules and regulations. I have a friend who's relative is a homosexual man. She and her family refer to him as a girl, even though he doesn't portray one. To me, that is insulting. Rather or not you are homosexual, a man is still a man. HOWEVER, if that's his preference, then so be it.

That logic does not, nor should not, apply to laws, rules and regulations that discriminate based on ***. There are, and should always be, guidelines. Either get rid of the discrimination or support it. I shouldn't be able to put on a wig and be able to compete as a woman in scenarios where there are *** discrimination.

What people call you is not the topic. The topic is how to integrate trans in *** discriminating scenarios. There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with calling a man "she" in the men's locker room. The issue isn't rather or not we call the man a "she", but rather he should be in the woman's locker room, playing on an athletic women's team, etc.

Rachel wrote:
Yes, and what i've said is that i'm a woman who has a *****. Surely you've read that much? And yet, you clearly still think of me as a woman.
...
You are, but until it becomes widespread (let's say, no less than 50% of the people in a community for it to even be considered), don't be surprised when no one accepts it as valid.

I did not read that. I apologize for overlooking that.

I'm not going to insult you if you prefer to be seen as a woman. However, that respect is mutual as you cannot enforce your belief onto me if you believe in your concept of labels. As long as you ask me, you are a man. Men have penises and women have vaginas, along with other biological differences. Of course there are rare exceptions, but those exceptions do not include a "change of heart". You don't have monthly periods, you can't give birth, you don't have all of the other medical/biological differences that come with being a woman. If you're going to spout out that labels are just words, then I'm able to exercise that same right. I'm not going to get in your face and yell "YOU'RE A MAN!", because I couldn't care less how you label yourself. At the same time, don't expect people to deny science because you want to be different either.

So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#555 Mar 23 2013 at 12:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Quote:
I have a friend who's relative is a homosexual man. She and her family refer to him as a girl, even though he doesn't portray one. To me, that is insulting. Rather or not you are homosexual, a man is still a man.
Yes, that does indeed sound quite insulting!

Quote:
You don't have monthly periods, you can't give birth,
Neither can plenty of other women.
Quote:
you don't have all of the other medical/biological differences that come with being a woman.
That usually come with being a woman. No, i do not, and have never claimed to.

Quote:
At the same time, don't expect people to deny science because you want to be different either.
How does gender not being based entirely on *** go against science? It's a pretty well documented phenomenon.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2013 2:28pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#556 Mar 23 2013 at 1:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
If your concept of labels apply to every word, then why do you care about the word? Only if your concept varies per word, will using "***/gender" would matter.

Rachel wrote:
Neither can plenty of other women.


Which is just one of many biological aspects that make a woman. There's a huge difference between a man and a woman not having a period. A woman not ever having a period is considered abnormal, while a man is not capable of having one.

Rachel wrote:
How does gender not being based entirely on *** go against science? It's a pretty well documented phenomenon.


Almalieque previously wrote:
There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with calling a man "she" in the men's locker room.


The topic is over *** discriminating laws, as *** is the primary form of discrimination, not gender. In other words, most people differentiate by ***, not gender. So, as man, I will label you by your ***, which is male. If you prefer the female gender, that's fine, but don't expect others to bypass your biological *** as a man.

So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#557 Mar 23 2013 at 1:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Not arguing with you does not equal agreement, you moron. I, for one, have absolutely no idea what the **** you're on about. Even if I wanted to argue with you (which I assure you, I do not because of the off the wall insane tangents you go down) I couldn't.
#558 Mar 23 2013 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Quote:
If your concept of labels apply to every word, then why do you care about the word?
Because until your definitions become accepted by a large portion of the community, they are not valid. If you want to use the words gender and *** to refer to exactly the same thing, you can go right ahead. And if everyone else goes along with that, then one day they will in fact mean the same thing. Until then though, please clarify what you mean, because I am not familiar with the way you are using those words.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2013 3:32pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#559 Mar 23 2013 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Rachel9,

Just ask Alma why he's uncomfortable peeing next to a chick with a **** so he can spend the rest of the thread not answering the question.

-Omega
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#560 Mar 23 2013 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
492 posts
You mean why he wants to? Because we don't want to pee next to him, but wants to force us to Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
#561 Mar 23 2013 at 5:42 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Belkira wrote:
Not arguing with you does not equal agreement, you moron. I, for one, have absolutely no idea what the @#%^ you're on about. Even if I wanted to argue with you (which I assure you, I do not because of the off the wall insane tangents you go down) I couldn't.


Phewww. Good thing I wasn't talking to or about you. That was partially my fault for not clarifying my point. Then again, I deserve more credit in knowing my audience after 10 years of posting here. I am fully aware of your inability to follow a thread. I would be shocked to see a response from you, especially without a quick concession. Years ago you would have been a different story.

Rachel wrote:
Because until your definitions become accepted by a large portion of the community, they are not valid.


Exactly and the definition of *** based on biology and not gender is accepted by a large portion of the community.

Rachel wrote:
If you want to use the words gender and *** to refer to exactly the same thing, you can go right ahead.


I'm not using them as the same word. I've distinctly used them separately throughout this thread. You've gone around in so many circles that you don't even know what you're arguing about. Maybe that's the reason why you can't expound on the "transgender rights" that you are arguing about. You don't actually have a point. Either that or you're simply in denial.

I'm referencing to your concept quoted above. "until your definitions become accepted by a large portion of the community, they are not valid.". You've said for the "hundredth" time that your quoted concept applies to all words.

In other words, if a man labels his *** as a man and society accepts it, then it is valid. If a man labels his gender as a man and society accepts it, then it is valid. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you're arguing for *** and/or gender, because in either instance as long as society accepts it, then it is valid. That's not saying that *** is the same thing as gender.

It's not that freakin' hard to grasp....

So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#562 Mar 23 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I am fully aware of your inability to follow a thread. I would be shocked to see a response from you, especially without a quick concession. Years ago you would have been a different story.


Yeah, I have learned that talking to you is about as effective as talking to a brick wall. The only real difference is that the brick wall could probably comprehend simple ideas where you seem to fail. Smiley: frown
#563 Mar 23 2013 at 6:11 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
brick walls are actually incapable of cognition and are . however frustrated we might be with alma, i think it's important to recognise that he's a sentient human being with real thoughts, hopes and dreams.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#564 Mar 23 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Kavekk wrote:
brick walls are actually incapable of cognition and are . however frustrated we might be with alma, i think it's important to recognise that he's a sentient human being with real thoughts, hopes and dreams.


Nah.
#565 Mar 23 2013 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
belkira i'm noticing a real disconnect between how you approach alma and how you approach other people and topics on this internet forum. i'm not going to pontficate as to why that may be, i'm no pyschologist, but it's really noticeable and quite jarring.

some food for thought perhaps.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#566 Mar 23 2013 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Quote:
Exactly and the definition of *** based on biology and not gender is accepted by a large portion of the community.
As far as i'm aware, no one believes otherwise. As i've said, there is no relation between *** and gender. They are completely different things, and neither determines the other.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2013 8:19pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#567 Mar 23 2013 at 6:20 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Belkira wrote:

Yeah, I have learned that talking to you is about as effective as talking to a brick wall. The only real difference is that the brick wall could probably comprehend simple ideas where you seem to fail. Smiley: frown


That accusation is often made, but never substantiated. If you believe so, please give me one example of an idea that I cannot comprehend (not to be confused with agreeing to). You confuse "agreeing to" with "understanding". I completely understand your "simple ideas", I just don't agree with them for several reasons.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#568 Mar 23 2013 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
That accusation is often made, but never substantiated. If you believe so, please give me one example of an idea that I cannot comprehend (not to be confused with agreeing to). You confuse "agreeing to" with "understanding". I completely understand your "simple ideas", I just don't agree with them for several reasons.


No, thanks. It's not worth my time.
#569 Mar 23 2013 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Rachel wrote:
As far as i'm aware, no one believes otherwise. As i've said, there is no relation between *** and gender. They are completely different things, and neither determines the other.


Not according to their definitions. Just because they are two different words doesn't mean they aren't related. To argue that *** and gender aren't related in any way is foolish.


a : *** <the feminine gender>
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one ***

Medical Definition of GENDER
1: *** 1
2: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one ***




1. See also natural gender a set of two or more grammatical categories into which the nouns of certain languages are divided, sometimes but not necessarily corresponding to the *** of the referent when animate
2. any of the categories, such as masculine, feminine, neuter, or common, within such a set
3. informal the state of being male, female, or neuter
4. informal all the members of one ***: the female gender


Gender is a range of physical, mental, and behavioral characteristics distinguishing between masculinity and femininity.[1][2][3] Depending on the context, the term may refer to *** (i.e. the state of being male or female), social roles (as in gender roles), or gender identity

In contrast, for many contexts, including some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "***" or even to replace the latter word.

The popular use of gender simply as an alternative to *** (as a biological category) is also widespread, although attempts are still made to preserve the distinction. The American Heritage Dictionary (2000) uses the following two sentences to illustrate the difference, noting that the distinction "is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels."[14]



Again, if that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I did not create those scenarios in the main post nor the information in the quoted sources.So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?



Edited, Mar 24th 2013 2:43am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#570 Mar 23 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Belkira wrote:

No, thanks. It's not worth my time.


And posting that was? I didn't ask you to argue the point. The amount of effort it took you to reply to that post is equivalent to the amount of time to post ANY idea that I could not comprehend (not to be confused with agreeing to).
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#571 Mar 23 2013 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Quote:
Gender is a range of physical, mental, and behavioral characteristics distinguishing between masculinity and femininity.

Quote:
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one ***
So, yeah...
____________________________
#572 Mar 23 2013 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
I completely understand your "simple ideas", I just don't agree with them for several reasons.


And those reasons remain easily summed up by this

Screenshot


Until such time as you can "really" explain why it is that you're uncomfortable around ******. Except when you jerk off to ******* ****, then it's ok right?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#573 Mar 23 2013 at 7:23 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Rachel wrote:
So, yeah...

Rachel wrote:
As far as i'm aware, no one believes otherwise. As i've said, there is no relation between *** and gender. They are completely different things, and neither determines the other.


Rachel's quote wrote:
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one ***


Do you not know the definition of "relation"? In the very definition that you quoted, it states that gender are traits typically associated with one's ***. That's not saying that they are the same words, but they are indeed related by definition.

The term gender was created during the Women's Right movement to prevent mandates of behavior simply due to a woman's ***. So, the term gender has everything to do with ***. In any case, you said "no one". I just provided to you several definitions that said otherwise. I didn't claim "everyone", but the majority. I even gave you quotes that demonstrated that the term "gender" is now contradicting the initial intent and is often simply replacing the term *** all together.

So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#574 Mar 23 2013 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Quote:
In any case, you said "no one". I just provided to you several definitions that said otherwise
You have done no such thing.
____________________________
#575 Mar 23 2013 at 7:42 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
In any case, you said "no one". I just provided to you several definitions that said otherwise
You have done no such thing.

See post # 569. You may have not read what was listed, but it's there.
What Almalieque the Great previously wrote:
The popular use of gender simply as an alternative to *** (as a biological category) is also widespread, although attempts are still made to preserve the distinction.


How can you possibly misread that. If people didn't discriminate base off ***, then WTF did women differentiate gender from ***? Obviously women were expected to behave certain ways (i.e. secretary jobs) simply based on their ***. The counter was that behaviors that are traditionally associated to one's *** aren't mandated by their ***. A woman can just as easily love football and do construction work as a man. Likewise, a man can stay at home, design homes and take care of children. The movement was made because there was no distinction. Why? Because society discriminates based on ***.

I can +1 you all day as you were already defeated pages ago.

So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#576 Mar 23 2013 at 8:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Smiley: banghead

Please tell me you're drunk. All of you. Because that's the only way any of this makes a tiny bit of sense.
#577 Mar 23 2013 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Hi, i was responding to
Quote:
Exactly and the definition of *** based on biology and not gender is accepted by a large portion of the community.


You linked the exact opposite: defining gender by ***. I am, unfortunately, well aware that some people do that.

Furthermore, " no one believes otherwise." means everyone agrees. As in, no one disagrees. As in, yes, *** is based on biology, and NOT gender.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2013 11:47pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#578 Mar 24 2013 at 5:31 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Smiley: banghead

Please tell me you're drunk. All of you. Because that's the only way any of this makes a tiny bit of sense.
Brain damage is also a good explanation.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#579 Mar 24 2013 at 6:22 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Drain bamage.
____________________________
Banh
#580 Mar 24 2013 at 6:25 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
So, yeah...

Rachel wrote:
As far as i'm aware, no one believes otherwise. As i've said, there is no relation between *** and gender. They are completely different things, and neither determines the other.


Rachel's quote wrote:
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits [b]typically associated with one ***[/b]


Do you not know the definition of "relation"? In the very definition that you quoted, it states that gender are traits typically associated with one's ***. That's not saying that they are the same words, but they are indeed related by definition.

Alma, "typically" does not mean "always". The definition specifically leaves room for the minority cases where the behavioral cultural or psychological traits of a person's gender is different from those associated with one's born ***.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#581 Mar 24 2013 at 6:34 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Rachel wrote:
You linked the exact opposite: defining gender by ***. I am, unfortunately, well aware that some people do that.


See post #569.
Almalieque for the third time wrote:
The popular use of gender simply as an alternative to *** (as a biological category) is also widespread, although attempts are still made to preserve the distinction.


Just because you didn't read it thoroughly, doesn't mean it isn't there. In the definitions, i.e. wikipedia, it clearly states that the creation of the term gender was to separate "biology" from stereotypes. Your argument contradicts the entire creation of the word and push during the Women's Rights movement. The movement was to only define a woman by her biological make up, not by stereotypes. That's where the word "gender" comes in. So, being a woman, doesn't mean cook, secretary and stay-at home mom/caretaker. It means breast and ****** who can be a cook or an EE college professor.

Furthermore, you said that there was NO RELATION, so by demonstrating their relation through the term gender and you acknowledging that relation, you are wrong. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?



Edited, Mar 24th 2013 2:42pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#582 Mar 24 2013 at 6:40 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Arip wrote:

Alma, "typically" does not mean "always". The definition specifically leaves room for the minority cases where the behavioral cultural or psychological traits of a person's gender is different from those associated with one's born ***.


Arip, I not only know that, I've been saying that the entire time. Rachel is been going in circles in random different arguments to prevent from admitting error. There is a clear distinction between the words gender and ***. Rachel's argument was that there was NO RELATION between the two. My quotes weren't to prove that there were the same word, but to show that there is a relation between the two words.

I also quoted the definitions to demonstrate that society differentiates *** by biology. That very fact is how the word gender is able to be a separate word than ***. One is biological and the other one is not.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#583 Mar 24 2013 at 7:35 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Half of your posts any more are like 25%+ copy pasted from others. I'm the one going in circles?
____________________________
#584 Mar 24 2013 at 7:42 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Rachel wrote:
Half of your posts any more are like 25%+ copy pasted from others. I'm the one going in circles?


It would only be going in circles if you actually addressed the copied/pasted information. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#585 Mar 24 2013 at 8:52 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
If i don't address something, it's probably because i either don't understand wtf you're asking, or because it's so dumb i don't feel like it. I will allow you to speculate about which case this might be.
____________________________
#586 Mar 24 2013 at 9:23 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
If i don't address something, it's probably because i either don't understand wtf you're asking, or because it's so dumb i don't feel like it. I will allow you to speculate about which case this might be.


In either situation, that doesn't make me going in circles now does it?

My entire point has been that either transgenders should be treated as their natural *** when it comes to *** discriminating laws, rules, practices etc. or the laws, rules, practices, etc. should be removed.

You later argued for pages how *** shouldn't be defined by genitalia to only concede to that point on post #510. Since that has been my main point and we agreed, I asked you what exactly have you been arguing against? You stated "Transgender rights"? I merely asked you to expound on what rights? Surely you understand the question. So, if that question is "so dumb", then you're only deriding yourself as you were the one who brought it up. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?


P.S. I have absolutely no expectation of you answering the question as I know that you merely put your foot in your mouth. I just like watching you tap dance around simply admitting that I'm right. It's the Internet for God's sake. It's not that serious. I'm wrong several times, usually in the most embarrassing way.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#587 Mar 24 2013 at 9:59 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Quote:
You later argued for pages how *** shouldn't be defined by genitalia
Please link to the post(s) where i said that.

Edited, Mar 24th 2013 12:01pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#588 Mar 24 2013 at 10:37 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
You later argued for pages how *** shouldn't be defined by genitalia
Please link to the post(s) where i said that.

Edited, Mar 24th 2013 12:01pm by Rachel9


Regardless or not you want to admit to your statements, you agreed to my primary point of defining *** by genitalia. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#589 Mar 24 2013 at 10:48 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
492 posts
Quote:
Regardless or not you want to admit to your statements, you agreed to my primary point of defining *** by genitalia.
Yes, because that's what *** is. Everyone knows that.
____________________________
#590 Mar 24 2013 at 10:57 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
Regardless or not you want to admit to your statements, you agreed to my primary point of defining *** by genitalia.
Yes, because that's what *** is. Everyone knows that.

So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#591 Mar 24 2013 at 12:11 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
WHERE'S THE BEEF (curtains)?
#592 Mar 24 2013 at 12:19 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
It's what's for dinner.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#593 Mar 24 2013 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,264 posts
Guenny wrote:
WHERE'S THE BEEF (curtains)?


Look up Dominika.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#594 Mar 24 2013 at 7:56 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
You later argued for pages how *** shouldn't be defined by genitalia
Please link to the post(s) where i said that.


Almalieque wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
You later argued for pages how *** shouldn't be defined by genitalia
Please link to the post(s) where i said that.]


Regardless or not you want to admit to your statements, you agreed to my primary point of defining *** by genitalia. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?

Almalieque, Rachel (however incommunicatively) was arguing for pages that gender should not be defined by genitalia. Not that *** should not be determined by genitalia, but that gender should not be be determined by genitalia.

In light of this, and assuming Rachel is a male-to-female transgender, I'm assuming that Rachel would really appreciate the personal security of being permitted to use facilities that are concurrent with her gender but not her ***. I'm assuming that Rachel, for instance, would feel very uncomfortable walking back into the male *** bathroom that she's used for most of her childhood in a girl's haircut, make-up and feminine clothing. She'd probably feel very out of place doing that, and be aware that the men in the bathroom would probably be uncomfortable with her being there.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#595 Mar 25 2013 at 6:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
I think Alma and Rachel should be pointed to a private forum. They need to work this out free from outside influences.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#596 Mar 25 2013 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,514 posts
They are working it out free from outside influences.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#597 Mar 25 2013 at 7:56 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Elinda wrote:
I think Alma and Rachel should be pointed to a private forum. They need to work this out free from outside influences.


*sigh*


I'll get the weapons rack...
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#598 Mar 25 2013 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
As for the "WHO DETERMINES?" question, as in, who gets to say a man is a woman, and therefore should be allowed to use the woman's toilets? Almost always a doctor, indeed several specialists including a psychiatrist, gets to say so, and can write doctor's notes for the individual who feels trapped in the "wrong body". Just like someone with an internal metal brace or shrapnel will have a doctor's note so that they can bypass metal detectors, and not be put in CAT machines. One should, of course, give a TG the courtesy of believing in their life-long experience. But if you want to be sure, really, really sure, you can always ask who their specialist is. Not for their medical history. But to know that they have one who is expert in gender medicine.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#599 Mar 25 2013 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
As for the "WHO DETERMINES?" question, as in, who gets to say a man is a woman, and therefore should be allowed to use the woman's toilets? Almost always a doctor, indeed several specialists including a psychiatrist, gets to say so, and can write doctor's notes for the individual who feels trapped in the "wrong body". Just like someone with an internal metal brace or shrapnel will have a doctor's note so that they can bypass metal detectors, and not be put in CAT machines. One should, of course, give a TG the courtesy of believing in their life-long experience. But if you want to be sure, really, really sure, you can always ask who their specialist is. Not for their medical history. But to know that they have one who is expert in gender medicine.


So you are in favor of carding at the door?
#600 Mar 25 2013 at 11:33 AM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Nope.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#601 Mar 25 2013 at 2:21 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Quote:

Almalieque, Rachel (however incommunicatively) was arguing for pages that gender should not be defined by genitalia. Not that *** should not be determined by genitalia, but that gender should not be be determined by genitalia.


False. Rachel was arguing both by interchanging gender with *** when he felt appropriate. Of course gender isn't determined by genitalia, again that's the entire point of the creation of the word; to differentiate stereotypes from ***. I've said that a million times.

Rachel also stated that *** IS DEFINED biologically. However, he also said that women could have penises. The last time I checked, a ***** is biological, not stereotypical traits as described with gender. So the correct label would be a man with a female gender. You can't just switch the terms man and woman to mean *** and/or gender to support your point.

If *** is biologically defined, then how does a person with zero woman biological traits and all man biological traits be defined as a woman? That person is defined as a man by *** with the freedom to choose to exercise either a male or female gender. Just because a man decides to choose a female's gender, it doesn't biologically change him into a woman.

Arip wrote:

In light of this, and assuming Rachel is a male-to-female transgender, I'm assuming that Rachel would really appreciate the personal security of being permitted to use facilities that are concurrent with her gender but not her ***. I'm assuming that Rachel, for instance, would feel very uncomfortable walking back into the male *** bathroom that she's used for most of her childhood in a girl's haircut, make-up and feminine clothing. She'd probably feel very out of place doing that, and be aware that the men in the bathroom would probably be uncomfortable with her being there.


So I avoided from mentioning the hypocrisy in this sentiment when the thread was interesting. However, since it's pretty much dead, I'll bring it up. Where were all of these feelings when debating DADT? How come heterosexuals can't execute their same feelings to choose their surroundings when dealing with comfort? How is it "homophobia" for a heterosexual, but "ok" for not only transgenders but often women?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CST
Kavekkk, Samira, Anonymous Guests (38)