The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[repoman]

There are a lot of cool calm and collected trans people out there that are not in a constant panic attack state about really and truly being the same as cisgendered people of the sex they have transitioned to.

 

[Metaphor]

Well they did use to say "she made him a man", didn't they? So by a strictly traditional definition, a boy remains a boy until/unless he becomes sexually active with the opposite sex.

And do you think that figure of speech should actually become the definition of man--a male who has had heterosexual sex at least once?

I don't think that's a good definition, but obviously some people feel the need to attach all kinds of qualifiers.

Conversely, are lesbians lesser women?

The point is, your definition may be more ttaditional than the one preferred by some trans activists, but it's not the one true factual and traditional people have always used - it too is ultimately arbitrary.

Definitions evolve from use; they are not 'arbitrary'.

 

[Jokodo]

Well they did use to say "she made him a man", didn't they? So by a strictly traditional definition, a boy remains a boy until/unless he becomes sexually active with the opposite sex.

And do you think that figure of speech should actually become the definition of man--a male who has had heterosexual sex at least once?

I don't think that's a good definition, but obviously some people feel the need to attach all kinds of qualifiers.

Conversely, are lesbians lesser women?

The point is, your definition may be more ttaditional than the one preferred by some trans activists, but it's not the one true factual and traditional people have always used - it too is ultimately arbitrary.

Definitions evolve from use; they are not 'arbitrary'.

And "use" is the aggregate of individual use cases, by individual people. When sufficiently many people start using a word in a different way than their grandparents used to, it's the dictionaries that become outdated, not the people doing it wrong.

 

[ruby sparks]

You appear to know better than lexicographers what a man is....

Lexicographers? Lol. It appears to have escaped your notice completely that the terms, status and categories of trans gender woman and man are more or less already basically and legally recognised in principle at least in many places. You even use them yourself!

Basic observation and logic fails.

Again, because you seem to be having persistent difficulties with this, I repeat, you just don't get to say what the agreed definitions and criteria are. That is not something you get to do. It's that simple. All you and others who agree with you get to do is tell us the ones you prefer. Now, that can't be so hard for you to understand, surely?

I don't believe that makes them somehow lesser men. But if you believe it, more power to you.

I don't actually believe it. Duh. Do try to keep up.

Also, you might want to consider using different descriptors and language. It is obviously illogical to say that a trans woman is not in the general category woman. You could say 'merely a so-called trans woman' perhaps. And by the same token others could say you were 'merely a so-called proper man', albeit for slightly different reasons. You may say you personally don't care but that is not the point, because the wider point is about how society treats people generally, and intolerance breeds intolerance, even if not by using a penis as nature intended.

Also, as ever, complaining about radicals who may go too far or ask too much does not justify lumping all those who disagree with you together. But you know that. And you object to it when it's done to you. Your tit-for-tat standards essentially invalidate your arguments and are a bit like those of the children's playground, imo.

 

[ruby sparks]

You must be a deeply unhappy man.

On the contrary, I'm deeply happy, partly because I love using my penis the way it is meant to be used, for having hot sex with women.

 

[Metaphor]

You appear to know better than lexicographers what a man is....

Lexicographers? Lol. It appears to have escaped your notice completely that the terms, status and categories of trans gender woman and man are more or less already basically and legally recognised in principle at least in many places. You even use them yourself!

Basic observation and logic fails.

Non. Fool's gold is not a type of gold. It is pyrite. The sentence "Fool's gold is not gold" is a perfectly sensible sentence. So is "trans women are men".

Again, because you seem to be having persistent difficulties with this, I repeat, you just don't get to say what the agreed definitions and criteria are. That is not something you get to do. It's that simple. All you and others who agree with you get to do is tell us the ones you prefer. Now, that can't be so hard for you to understand, surely?

Yes: I prefer the dictionary definition.

Also, you might want to consider using different descriptors and language. It is obviously illogical to say that a trans woman is not in the general category woman. You could say 'merely a so-called trans woman' perhaps. And by the same token others could say you were 'merely a so-called proper man', albeit for slightly different reasons. You may say you personally don't care but that is not the point, because the wider point is about how society treats people generally, and intolerance breeds intolerance, even if not by using a penis as nature intended.

Non. Fool's gold is not a type of gold. It is pyrite. The sentence "Fool's gold is not gold" is a perfectly sensible sentence. So is "trans women are men".

Of course I don't fucking care if some moron thinks his strange personal definition of a man makes me somehow a lesser man. I know what a man is. I am a man and I fuck them, too. Being a man isn't a badge of honour. It's a biological category.

Also, as ever, complaining about radicals who may go too far or ask too much does not justify lumping all those who disagree with you together. But you know that. And you object to it when it's done to you. Your tit-for-tat standards essentially invalidate your arguments and are a bit like those of the children's playground, imo.

Asking me to call an adult human male a "woman" is going too far. Asking men to share their single sex spaces with adult human females is going too far. Using the force of the state to cancel, fire, or criminalise people who "misgender" somebody is going too far. Asking girls to compete against boys is going too far.

But, you've convinced me of one thing. Since you seem to have particular difficulty understanding that "trans women are men" is a meaningful sentence, and is also true, I'm going to change my written language. It's transwomen from now on.

Transwomen are men.

 

[ruby sparks]

I prefer the dictionary definition.

Dictionary? Why? Dictionaries typically provide a range of definitions, sometimes colloquial only. Legal recognitions are much more specific and have higher standing compared to dictionaries.

Still having trouble with the fact that you don't get to decide, I see.

So your beliefs clearly do conflict with reality after all.

Maybe you have other deficiencies to go along with you not being a proper man.

 

[ruby sparks]

Asking me to call an adult human male a "woman" is going too far.

That's odd, because you already do, according to you.

Anyhows, lots of things go to far for you. Feminists speaking for example. But then they're like cockroaches I suppose.

You could start your own dictionary. "Feminist: a talking cockroach with an opinion I don't like".

 

[Metaphor]

I prefer the dictionary definition.

Dictionary? Why? Dictionaries typically provide a range of definitions, sometimes colloquial only. Legal recognitions are much more specific and have higher standing compared to dictionaries.

Still having trouble with the fact that you don't get to decide, I see. .

So your beliefs clearly do conflict with reality after all.

Maybe you have other deficiencies to go along with you not being a proper man.

Sure luv.

 

[Metaphor]

Asking me to call an adult human male a "woman" is going too far.

That's odd, because you already do.

Sure luv.

How's your fool's gold mine investment going? Gold price is going through the roof, you ought be pretty happy!

 

[ruby sparks]

I prefer the dictionary definition.

Dictionary? Why? Dictionaries typically provide a range of definitions, sometimes colloquial only. Legal recognitions are much more specific and have higher standing compared to dictionaries.

Still having trouble with the fact that you don't get to decide, I see. .

So your beliefs clearly do conflict with reality after all.

Maybe you have other deficiencies to go along with you not being a proper man.

Sure luv.

Given my sexual orientation and yours, and that we don't really know each other, that's arguably a micro-aggression.

Asking me to call an adult human male a "woman" is going too far.

That's odd, because you already do.

Sure luv.

This is turning into a pattern of unwelcome behaviour on your part.

 

[ruby sparks]

Gold price is going through the roof..

Bit like my proper man appendage when I'm in bed with my woman, or maybe even like her state of mind after we've been there for a while and I've done some proper man things to her.

I'll say his about you. You're completely unlampoonable. [/irony]

Laters. I'm done discussing this with you.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Asking me to call an adult human male a "woman" is going too far.

That's odd, because you already do, according to you.

Anyhows, lots of things go to far for you.

Which is kind of just the theme for these threads. 'Too far' for Metaphor is an embarrassingly low threshold.

 

[Metaphor]

Gold price is going through the roof..

Bit like my proper man appendage when I'm in bed with my woman, or maybe even like her state of mind after we've been there for a while and I've done some proper man things to her.

I'll say his about you. You're completely unlampoonable. [/irony]

Laters. I'm done discussing this with you.

Bye luv.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Transwomen are men.

That's as vacuous as saying gay men are heterosexual. You're arguing a strict "biological category." The only biological purpose for an orgasm--for ejaculation--is to drive you to impregnate women. Your penis serves only one biological imperative, so if you are not sticking it in a woman's vagina, you are acting outside of your biological category in the exact same way that you are bizarrely arguing transgendered people are doing.

 

[Emily Lake]

I used to be one of the cynical 'bisexuals are just gay' crowd.

I always leaned more toward the "bisexuals are just horny" side of things, myself.

 

[Jokodo]

I used to be one of the cynical 'bisexuals are just gay' crowd.

I always leaned more toward the "bisexuals are just horny" side of things, myself.

We all know that gays are just bisexuals who don't often fall for someone of the opposite sex. Just like straights are bisexuals who don't often fall for someone of their own sex.

 

[Arctish]

Oh, hey!

If we're all bisexual, that solves everything!

 

[ruby sparks]

Just to up the ante, where I come from,some old farmers (it was alleged) used to say, ‘man, woman or beast, I’m easy’.

 

[Metaphor]

Transwomen are men.

That's as vacuous as saying gay men are heterosexual.

No. Transwomen are adult human males, therefore they are men.

You're arguing a strict "biological category."

I'm arguing that mammals cannot change sex, which is a biological fact.

The only biological purpose for an orgasm--for ejaculation--is to drive you to impregnate women. Your penis serves only one biological imperative, so if you are not sticking it in a woman's vagina, you are acting outside of your biological category in the exact same way that you are bizarrely arguing transgendered people are doing.

Every single sex act with an infertile woman, or a woman on the Pill, or a woman post menopause, or a penis with a franga on it, or a penis that is withdrawn before ejaculation, or an oral sex act, or a jerking off, is 'acting outside of your biological category' if that's what you imagine 'acting outside your biological category' to mean or why it's important to you.

I don't care if you or anybody 'acts outside your biological category' and I never have. What I do care about is the cultural and legal proscriptions trans activists have wielded to criminalise or cancel somebody who "misgenders" somebody else, to bully lesbians into having sex with men with penises who call themselves women, to invade single-sex spaces as if single-sex spaces were single-gender spaces, to give puberty blockers with unknown long-term effects to children, to make a mockery of women's and girl's sport.

There are "transwomen"--biological men with penises--who are in relationships with women--actual women, and they call themselves a lesbian couple. So when this man has penis-in-vagina sex with his girlfriend, he thinks: this is so lesbian and she thinks: this is so lesbian and they want me to think the same thing.