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

[kflo]

"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.

Does it build you up to call all trans people mentally ill? Does that make you feel better about yourself?

 

[kflo]

A female:

of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

A man literally cannot have the gender of a female. There are no gotchas here. Just facts and common sense. The reason why the simplest things seem like gotchas to you is because your ideology is ridiculously nonsensical.

A man can’t have the sex of female. You see the bold word you quoted?

Again, I posted facts and you can’t even address it directly Charlie.

 

[RoastBeast]

A man can’t have the sex of female. You see the bold word you quoted?

Again, I posted facts and you can’t even address it directly Charlie.

Are you having trouble using simple logic? Female is not only a term for sex, but it involves organs that men do not have. A man can't have the gender identity of the female sex and a man cannot have female sex organs. Therefore a man cannot identify as a woman in any other capacity other than just wishing he was a woman. Your argument is so nonsensical, it's just sad at this point.

I'm literally refuting what you think are facts right now lol. Once again, just stop. I'd compare this to debating with a 5 year old but even a 5 year old knows what a woman is.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

That happened in 1945.

You can't really blame the current transgender climate for associating the word "gender" with the presentation of sex.

Yeah what a nice history that has. Truly some inspirational people involved in that, like John Money.

 

[muhammadgoatli]

I am just loling that this simple statement:
"A man is a man, and a woman is a woman"
is so controversial that over 30 pages are required and y'all prolly just got started.

 

[terrapin]

that's why case by case you have to determine their most appropriate place.

saying common knowledge doesn't really cut it (and i don't think that's an accurate statement). you have to show evidence.

again, you need to provide evidence. and not just a video of stock saying it. with details to confirm the methodology and source of data.

first, the "entire way" has been for trans women to use the bathroom they feel most appropriate. not mandating a 3rd space. as for prisons, again, there is no "entire way".


first, trans women are less than 1% of the population. 2nd, they aren't treated as men. 3rd, how would you even go about defining "trans benefits"? 4th, trans men are taken out of the pool as well if they are identifying as men. so you are ok with the outs from the system, but object to the ins?



i'm sorry but i'm not going back through all the pages to find something that i can't remember discussing. it's a needle in a haystack if it exists. humor me.

on transgender women with sexual violence or crimes on their record. i know its true because NOBODY from the trans community has leveled a defense against it. but here is some proof. its not up for debate unless you are going to be a hack about it.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/


you said--

it's not taking protections away. i don't even understand what protections are being taken away. like i said, i don't even think employers have a right to know if someone is trans or not. it's up to the employee to self identify if they choose. and again, trans women aren't afforded any benefits of being a man. again, you haven't addressed this point yet.

i cannot help but think you are being a hack again here and arguing in bad faith. you cant not understand my point. ill state it again but if you pretend not to understand again or dont address it then your admittance that you have been arguing in bad faith is a bad faith statement.

there is funding for WOMEN that is set aside for WOMEN because of studies based on WOMENS issues. if you want to give those benefits and quota positions to MEN you are defacto taking away from WOMEN.

i want you to address why that is a better position than studying TRANSPEOPLES issue and setting aside funding for those TRANASPEOPLE rather than taking funding for WOMEN and giving it to them. i honestly think you are shortchanging trans people here and women and cannot make a good case for it.

i dont understand what you are trying to say here at all--

"first, trans women are less than 1% of the population. 2nd, they aren't treated as men. 3rd, how would you even go about defining "trans benefits"? 4th, trans men are taken out of the pool as well if they are identifying as men. so you are ok with the outs from the system, but object to the ins?"

here below you again begin to cast doubt about my motives rather than address my positions and regress to thinking that reasonable people cannot disagree on policy positions. this is the kind of bad faith argument you are known for and that i thought i cornered you into admitting.....

i don't think your position is intellectual. i think it's emotional. in the end, its a tiny issue and it affords groups that are overcoming historical disadvantages.


you are once again not answering my questions and falling into some kind of pretend interrogation rather than a conversation. (you accused another poster of the same thing above lol) its really low level conversation with you....

i want YOU to make a case for why it is necessary to give spaces, funding and quotas to trans people that are reserved for women rather than doing the scientific diligence to identity trans issues and provide funding spaces and quotas to help that specific community.

you ASSUME thats the right thing to do but have NEVER provided a reasoned argument why. and i have asked repeatedly for you to do that. i do not believe you can make a necessary case for that.

if you are just going back to arguing in bad faith you are wasting my time man.

 

[terrapin]

And what?

You don't even know what a woman is. You aren't mentally equipped to even take part in this debate.

By your own definition, you have no discernible way to tell the difference in men and women. Your entire ideology is destroyed by a simple question. It's why you have nothing left to offer other than handing over a made up illogical definition and repeating "what's your point?" over and over again.

KO'd again by logic that even toddlers understand.

this is actually philosophically accurate. its the reason why they will NOT debate people like stock and joyce... their own reasoning is internally incoherent and faith based.

the reason why @kflo accuses people of being emotional or bigoted is because the very BEST intellectuals in the tran-community do that rather than debate in good faith. the ONLY reason you would do that is if you know your argument doesnt hold water.

at bottom MANY of them believe that if you change language you will change reality. and its fine if you believe that but that is a faith based thing and cannot be demonstrated or proven. rid the world of language that accurately distinguishes between men and women and the distinctions themselves will become irrelevant or in more extreme beliefs actually disappear.

 

[terrapin]

I mean there are Twitter threads and Tiktok channels that specifically show predator like men using the new bathroom loophole norm to do creepy shit. Cross dressing men (not trans) with boners in the bathroom, etc.

It's happening.

plenty of evidence its happening but these zealots wont admit it.

what i cant understand it why third spaces is NOT an option for them. its weird...

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Are you having trouble using simple logic? Female is not only a term for sex, but it involves organs that men do not have. A man can't have the gender identity of the female sex and a man cannot have female sex organs. Therefore a man cannot identify as a woman in any other capacity other than just wishing he was a woman. Your argument is so nonsensical, it's just sad at this point.

I'm literally refuting what you think are facts right now lol. Once again, just stop. I'd compare this to debating with a 5 year old but even a 5 year old knows what a woman is.

 

[The_Renaissance]

"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.

The term "cis" just means "normal". Not afflicted by mental illness. Comfortable in your own skin. Comfortable with who you are.

Someone else's discomfort is none of my concern.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

"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.

it's insidious because so far the distinction was binary, woman or not woman.
with this cis bullshit they want to make it appear like there's more types of woman, type a, type b, whatever, out of which the "cis woman" is just one, which just isn't the case, since their entire argument is played simply in the realm of language, not of biology, where the correct term draws its authority from.

 

[The_Renaissance]

it's insidious because so far the distinction was binary, woman or not woman.
with this cis bullshit they want to make it appear like there's more types of woman, type a, type b, whatever, out of which the "cis woman" is just one, which just isn't the case, since their entire argument is played simply in the realm of language, not of biology, where the correct term draws its authority from.

"Cis" is just another term for 'normal'. Something to make weird cunts feel better about their weird-cuntness.

 

[kflo]

on transgender women with sexual violence or crimes on their record. i know its true because NOBODY from the trans community has leveled a defense against it. but here is some proof. its not up for debate unless you are going to be a hack about it.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/

From the source inside your link:

That means that it's unlikely that as many as half of all transgender prisoners have been convicted of a sexual offence - once you take into account those trans prisoners who weren't surveyed.

Transgender journalist and campaigner Jane Fae warns against reading too much into the available figures.

"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."
​

you said--

it's not taking protections away. i don't even understand what protections are being taken away. like i said, i don't even think employers have a right to know if someone is trans or not. it's up to the employee to self identify if they choose. and again, trans women aren't afforded any benefits of being a man. again, you haven't addressed this point yet.

i cannot help but think you are being a hack again here and arguing in bad faith. you cant not understand my point. ill state it again but if you pretend not to understand again or dont address it then your admittance that you have been arguing in bad faith is a bad faith statement.

there is funding for WOMEN that is set aside for WOMEN because of studies based on WOMENS issues. if you want to give those benefits and quota positions to MEN you are defacto taking away from WOMEN.

why do you get obnoxious?

Again, address what I’m saying. A trans woman is NOT afforded any benefits of being male in hiring. AND you have trans men who are leaving the pool of woman.

i want you to address why that is a better position than studying TRANSPEOPLES issue and setting aside funding for those TRANASPEOPLE rather than taking funding for WOMEN and giving it to them. i honestly think you are shortchanging trans people here and women and cannot make a good case for it.

First, funding isn’t just additive. You either need more funds or you reallocate funds.

Trans people aren’t forced to identify as trans. It’s up to them. Trans women are not the same as trans men as well. Again, you’re acting as if trans are taking something that doesn’t belong to them. But most trans women face a greater struggle in achieving equal treatment than cis women. They just get included as women if they are identifying as women (and men if they identify as a man). And as just noted, trans men are leaving the pool as trans women are entering them.

i dont understand what you are trying to say here at all--

"first, trans women are less than 1% of the population. 2nd, they aren't treated as men. 3rd, how would you even go about defining "trans benefits"? 4th, trans men are taken out of the pool as well if they are identifying as men. so you are ok with the outs from the system, but object to the ins?"

here below you again begin to cast doubt about my motives rather than address my positions and regress to thinking that reasonable people cannot disagree on policy positions. this is the kind of bad faith argument you are known for and that i thought i cornered you into admitting.....

i don't think your position is intellectual. i think it's emotional. in the end, its a tiny issue and it affords groups that are overcoming historical disadvantages.

Dude, wtf? You said MY position was anti-intellectual. I don’t think you have a monopoly or the upper hand on “intellectual”.

you are once again not answering my questions and falling into some kind of pretend interrogation rather than a conversation. (you accused another poster of the same thing above lol) its really low level conversation with you....

you’re a puzzling poster. I’m discussing in good faith and you seem to take offense. I don’t get it.

i want YOU to make a case for why it is necessary to give spaces, funding and quotas to trans people that are reserved for women rather than doing the scientific diligence to identity trans issues and provide funding spaces and quotas to help that specific community.

Again, we don’t even have forced identification of whether someone is trans. If they present themselves as a woman, they face the challenges of a woman. They get treated as a woman (or worse of course).

you ASSUME thats the right thing to do but have NEVER provided a reasoned argument why. and i have asked repeatedly for you to do that. i do not believe you can make a necessary case for that.

if you are just going back to arguing in bad faith you are wasting my time man.

Dude, stop the accusations. I’m discussing in good faith. If you don’t like it stop posting but just stop with the accusations.

I asked you to repeat your position that I don’t remember. If you don’t want to, we can’t discuss your position.

The reasoned argument is that trans women present as a women, often get treated as women, and we don’t force trans to identify themselves nor should we.

 

[kflo]

this is actually philosophically accurate. its the reason why they will NOT debate people like stock and joyce... their own reasoning is internally incoherent and faith based.

the reason why @kflo accuses people of being emotional or bigoted is because the very BEST intellectuals in the tran-community do that rather than debate in good faith. the ONLY reason you would do that is if you know your argument doesnt hold water.

at bottom MANY of them believe that if you change language you will change reality. and its fine if you believe that but that is a faith based thing and cannot be demonstrated or proven. rid the world of language that accurately distinguishes between men and women and the distinctions themselves will become irrelevant or in more extreme beliefs actually disappear.

This is your good faith discussion?

You seem to ascribe motives to trans people as being people who’s goal is to take from others. You start with bad intentions instead of good intentions - just living their life. Trans women are taking from women. Intentionally. As opposed to just wanting to live their life.

Again, how do you want trans to identify themselves in everyday life?

 

[kflo]

"Cis" is just another term for 'normal'. Something to make weird cunts feel better about their weird-cuntness.

@terrapin do you consider this guy an ally on the topic?

 

[terrapin]

This is your good faith discussion?

You seem to ascribe motives to trans people as being people who’s goal is to take from others. You start with bad intentions instead of good intentions - just living their life. Trans women are taking from women. Intentionally. As opposed to just wanting to live their life.

Again, how do you want trans to identify themselves in everyday life?

That is a strrawman/lie and you know it. I have asked you why you only propose policies that take from women to give to trans people when they are not even thought out solutions targeting trans people. Obviously funding set aside for women ought to come from studying women's issues and go to women..... And obviously funding for trans people should come from studies identifying trans people's issues. I am 100% in favor of helping trans people for their issues and would vote it in place at any point I was given the chance and since I always vote Democrat or progressive there's a good chance I will end up voting something like that into place.

Why not just discuss ideas intelligently?



The reason you can't defend wanting to take the money/positions from women instead is because you don't have a good reason. You know the funding ought to come from studying particular people's issues. And that's why you've now pretended in bad faith that I'm accusing trans people of doing that as a nefarious motive rather than YOU arguing for it on this forum and defending why....

It's too bad man because the truth is I think reasonable people can come to different ideas. And I'm fine with you having whatever ideas you have about policy. I just disagree. Having thought about these issues a great deal, I'm certain that my positions are better and more easily defended than yours. But I don't want to call your morality or your goodness into question or put you down for having the positions you have.... I don't need to do that.


The fact is a good portion of the trans activist community argues in bad faith... They are often not even trans people. I assume you are not. They often use underhanded cheap tactics instead of good faith debate.I t's because they don't have solid enough positions and arguments to stand up to scrutiny. They know they will lose the favor of public opinion if their ideas are exposed in front of better ideas and solutions on an even playing field.

That's why they call everyone bigots and pretend they have nefarious motives for all of their ideas to garner sympathy from the crowd. And it has never been established that these people even represent the majority of opinion for trans people. And I'm guessing they don't and I bet some trans people are embarrassed by the lack of intellectual rigor...

If I was a trans person, I would not want people like you speaking out for me making the whole movement look like a bunch of liars arguing in bad faith. But then again, I have not yet found a single intellectual who can argue effectively for the necessity of the rigid positions you and many transactivists hold. As far as ideas go, I think they're okay ideas but the need to argue in bad fairh really does reveal that you yourselves know they're not the strongest positions.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Does it build you up to call all trans people mentally ill? Does that make you feel better about yourself?

By definition they are mentally ill. What are you on about?

 

[Lucas1980]

He spoke a simple Fact and the fact that there are 31 pages discussing it is so comical. Its cut and dry and we all can agree that we all hope the Transformers get and seek out help for their mental illness.

 

[kflo]

That is a strrawman/lie and you know it. I have asked you why you only propose policies that take from women to give to trans people when they are not even thought out solutions targeting trans people. Obviously funding set aside for women ought to come from studying women's issues and go to women..... And obviously funding for trans people should come from studies identifying trans people's issues. I am 100% in favor of helping trans people for their issues and would vote it in place at any point I was given the chance and since I always vote Democrat or progressive there's a good chance I will end up voting something like that into place.

i'm not proposing anything. i'm not AGAINST the current approach. which is to include trans women as women. it's not taking away from women to give to trans. it's including trans women as women, and EXCLUDING trans men. you want to require disclosure. i don't think that's necessary. it's YOU that are proposing changes to how things currently work without any real discussion as to why the current state isn't working and NEEDS fixing.

Why not just discuss ideas intelligently?

why don't you?

you can see how that's not the best discussion approach?

The reason you can't defend wanting to take the money/positions from women instead is because you don't have a good reason. You know the funding ought to come from studying particular people's issues. And that's why you've now pretended in bad faith that I'm accusing trans people of doing that as a nefarious motive rather than YOU arguing for it on this forum and defending why....

i can absolutely defend including trans women with other women in access to women's causes. again, trans men don't get access. and trans women aren't FORCED to self identify as trans. again, how do you want to exclude them? require by law they identify themselves as trans?

It's too bad man because the truth is I think reasonable people can come to different ideas. And I'm fine with you having whatever ideas you have about policy. I just disagree. Having thought about these issues a great deal, I'm certain that my positions are better and more easily defended than yours. But I don't want to call your morality or your goodness into question or put you down for having the positions you have.... I don't need to do that.

i'm certain my ideas are better and easily defended. i guess that's a standstill. i am not questioning your morality or goodness. i'm addressing your words. trans women are not taking from. they are included with.

The fact is a good portion of the trans activist community argues in bad faith... They are often not even trans people. I assume you are not. They often use underhanded cheap tactics instead of good faith debate.I t's because they don't have solid enough positions and arguments to stand up to scrutiny. They know they will lose the favor of public opinion if their ideas are exposed in front of better ideas and solutions on an even playing field.

a good portion of the anti trans community calls them cunts. and obviously not only argue in bad faith, but with bad intentions.

That's why they call everyone bigots and pretend they have nefarious motives for all of their ideas to garner sympathy from the crowd. And it has never been established that these people even represent the majority of opinion for trans people. And I'm guessing they don't and I bet some trans people are embarrassed by the lack of intellectual rigor...

If I was a trans person, I would not want people like you speaking out for me making the whole movement look like a bunch of liars arguing in bad faith. But then again, I have not yet found a single intellectual who can argue effectively for the necessity of the rigid positions you and many transactivists hold. As far as ideas go, I think they're okay ideas but the need to argue in bad fairh really does reveal that you yourselves know they're not the strongest positions.

wtf? again you want to suggest a good faith discussion and call me a liar? and my positions are far less rigid than yours in my opinion.

and i'm still asking for how you enforce trans people identifying themselves as trans in every day life or even in workplace.

 

[terrapin]

i'm not proposing anything. i'm not AGAINST the current approach. which is to include trans women as women. it's not taking away from women to give to trans. it's including trans women as women, and EXCLUDING trans men. you want to require disclosure. i don't think that's necessary. it's YOU that are proposing changes to how things currently work without any real discussion as to why the current state isn't working and NEEDS fixing.

why don't you?

you can see how that's not the best discussion approach?



i can absolutely defend including trans women with other women in access to women's causes. again, trans men don't get access. and trans women aren't FORCED to self identify as trans. again, how do you want to exclude them? require by law they identify themselves as trans?

i'm certain my ideas are better and easily defended. i guess that's a standstill. i am not questioning your morality or goodness. i'm addressing your words. trans women are not taking from. they are included with.

a good portion of the anti trans community calls them cunts. and obviously not only argue in bad faith, but with bad intentions.

wtf? again you want to suggest a good faith discussion and call me a liar? and my positions are far less rigid than yours in my opinion.

and i'm still asking for how you enforce trans people identifying themselves as trans in every day life or even in workplace.

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

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?

i'm not proposing anything. i'm not AGAINST the current approach. which is to include trans women as women. it's not taking away from women to give to trans. it's including trans women as women, and EXCLUDING trans men. you want to require disclosure. i don't think that's necessary. it's YOU that are proposing changes to how things currently work without any real discussion as to why the current state isn't working and NEEDS fixing.

why don't you?

you can see how that's not the best discussion approach?



i can absolutely defend including trans women with other women in access to women's causes. again, trans men don't get access. and trans women aren't FORCED to self identify as trans. again, how do you want to exclude them? require by law they identify themselves as trans?

i'm certain my ideas are better and easily defended. i guess that's a standstill. i am not questioning your morality or goodness. i'm addressing your words. trans women are not taking from. they are included with.

a good portion of the anti trans community calls them cunts. and obviously not only argue in bad faith, but with bad intentions.

wtf? again you want to suggest a good faith discussion and call me a liar? and my positions are far less rigid than yours in my opinion.

and i'm still asking for how you enforce trans people identifying themselves as trans in every day life or even in workplace.

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....

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.

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

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....

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.

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.

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.

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



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.