UK Labour party can't say what a woman is.

[Jarhyn]

The breathtaking audacity that a <snip> would say "all you are giving up is words", when they leverage all the power of the State and corporate culture to punish and forbid "mere words".

You are being asked specifically to see the state and corporate culture give up all leverage to punish on the basis of people using these words for themselves. Everyone gives up their power over, the power of "man" and "woman" and the power to deny them. That's the compromise.

It is not that they are forbidden or ever would be.

Rather it is that they be used as those who ask request.

Giving up mere words.

Your real intent is clear though: You wish the state to put a legal weight in these words and so use them as a cudgel to beat down those you dislike for daring use them the way they choose, for their desire to maintain their privacy in common society.

Privacy here is the point which you can not reflect.

That is the lever you seek.

 

[Metaphor]

The breathtaking audacity that a <snip> would say "all you are giving up is words", when they leverage all the power of the State and corporate culture to punish and forbid "mere words".

You are being asked specifically to see the state and corporate culture give up all leverage to punish on the basis of people using these words for themselves. Everyone gives up their power over, the power of "man" and "woman" and the power to deny them. That's the compromise.

It is not that they are forbidden or ever would be.

Rather it is that they be used as those who ask request.

And you won't use pronouns that imply fealty. Why don't you use them as requested?

Giving up mere words.

Your real intent is clear though: You wish the state to put a legal weight in these words and so use them as a cudgel to beat down those you dislike for daring use them the way they choose, for their desire to maintain their privacy in common society.

No, I want the State to stop encouraging and enabling liars (like those who retroactively change the sex markers on their birth certificate), and stop punishing people for apostasy (like fining and forcing apologies from people refusing to utter the prayers of the gender cultists).
EDIT:
Jarhyn's selective adherence to his own principles. Jarhyn has a definition of 'cis' that he applies to me. When Jarhyn calls me 'cis', he is putting his own conception of my gender on to me.

 

[Jarhyn]

And you won't use pronouns that imply fealty. Why don't you use them as requested

It is not that I won't use them. I will respond to them as any free person ought: with a sword.

I want the State to stop encouraging and enabling liars

Then they'll have to start at the statehouse and work their way down I'm afraid.

You are then for thought crime, when a lie does not impact for material gain.

I have not sorted Lia into swimming with testosterone-free swimmers nor sorted a rapist in with those they may impregnate.

The "apostasy" you seem to dislike being "punished is explicitly revealing

sex markers on their birth certificate

Which was we have discussed is based on a visual inspection of a child's genitals, and occasionally a lie about those genitals following a mutilation.

So, every time you commit this "apostasy" as you call it, you are revealing what someone saw when they looked at a child's genitals against that person's consent. Or what they were mutilated to "look like".

It's pretty sick.

I wouldn't see people fined for it unless they do it with the mouth of the state, or as an employee of the state to another such.

I would see the public and businesses of public licensure not reserve service on those grounds.

There are grounds to reserve on, just not explicitly what a baby's wee looked like.

We can talk more about the deeper class theory behind "sex", but that might take a whole different thread in a much more scientific forum.

 

[Emily Lake]

Rather it is that they be used as those who ask request.

It's often how incredibly one-sided this "request" is enforced.

For example, I request that I be referred to as a woman by medical personnel, advertisers, and politicians. So do a great many other women. And yet... we now routinely get referred to as "people with cervixes", "menstruators", "bleeders", "chest feeders", and "birthing bodies".

Why is it that the requests of women are routinely dismissed, even when they are blatantly dehumanizing? Why is it that only a special few have requests that other people must be obligated to honor?

 

[Emily Lake]

It is not that I won't use them. I will respond to them as any free person ought: with a sword.

Dude, what the actual fucking fuck?

You are busy insisting that other people use language that they disagree with, and which is representative of a fantasy, because it has been "requested" by people that YOU support... but you respond to requests to use language that you disagree with by threatening violence?

That's... abhorrent.

 

[Jarhyn]

Rather it is that they be used as those who ask request.

It's often how incredibly one-sided this "request" is enforced.

For example, I request that I be referred to as a woman by medical personnel, advertisers, and politicians. So do a great many other women. And yet... we now routinely get referred to as "people with cervixes", "menstruators", "bleeders", "chest feeders", and "birthing bodies".

Why is it that the requests of women are routinely dismissed, even when they are blatantly dehumanizing? Why is it that only a special few have requests that other people must be obligated to honor?

Well, you, Emily Lake, in your explicit request get exactly and only that. You don't get it on behalf of everyone "like you, by Emily's definition" because YOU demonstrated that YOU only want this as a cudgel against "them".

There are terms that would be useful, but not as simple as "female" even because that is also a word under valid contention for different reasons.

We could have a discussion about this all in the science or sociology forums.

 

[Metaphor]

It is not that I won't use them. I will respond to them as any free person ought: with a sword.

The absolute gall of you suggesting others should respect pronouns when you refuse to do so.

Are you still calling me 'cis'?

Then they'll have to start at the statehouse and work their way down I'm afraid.

You are then for thought crime, when a lie does not impact for material gain.

In what way am I "for" thought crime? Do you read what you write before you post it?

I have not sorted Lia into swimming with testosterone-free swimmers nor sorted a rapist in with those they may impregnate.

The "apostasy" you seem to dislike being "punished is explicitly revealing

You did not finish your thought, but I will start with the very simplest request: I do not want to be forced by the State to mutter the pronoun prayers of the gender cultists.

Which was we have discussed is based on a visual inspection of a child's genitals, and occasionally a lie about those genitals following a mutilation.

So, every time you commit this "apostasy" as you call it, you are revealing what someone saw when they looked at a child's genitals against that person's consent. Or what they were mutilated to "look like".

One idiocy doth tread upon another's heel, So fast they follow.

People have observed sex at childbirth for millennia, and recorded sex (formally or informally) for centuries.

But just because sex is identified at birth from an inspection of genitals does not mean that sex is identified in adults from an inspection of genitals. Your genital obsession never ends.

I would see the public and businesses of public licensure not reserve service on those grounds.

I know what you think of businesses who want men with penises only. You object to them, as we learned on the campground thread.

 

[Metaphor]

Dude, what the actual fucking fuck?

You are busy insisting that other people use language that they disagree with, and which is representative of a fantasy, because it has been "requested" by people that YOU support... but you respond to requests to use language that you disagree with by threatening violence?

That's... abhorrent.

Not to mention one would think a wizard might use Fireball or Vampiric Touch instead of an edged weapon. Really Jarhyn, you'd monopolise the party healbot with your nonsense.

Jarhyn wants people to respect the pronouns other people ask for, but the rules do not apply to himself. He doesn't have to respect pronouns he disagrees with.

But then, he does appear to think pronouns are violence-provocation worthy, just like the trans men who are so crazed and demented by testosterone that they are can't help their violence when they are called 'she'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Have you said you believe Kabenaugh's accuser?

I, personally, have never said I believe Kavenaughs accuser. I don't. But that's not the same as saying I think she's lying. Or that Kavenaugh is an innocent victim. I'm sure something happened. Doubtless a drunken frat boy behaved badly. She went there because she wanted to be there, for some reason.

Decades later, I doubt anybody has a clear recollection of what actually happened. Clearly, alcohol was involved.
So, decades later, I dismissed her accusations as unimportant. Not false, just an unimportant political stunt.
Tom

Her description of events is not something "unimportant". If they're not false (which could be erroneous rather than lying) then they are important.

Or are you saying frat boys engaging in drunken rape is unimportant? (A failure to accomplish it doesn't change the basic wrongdoing.)

 

[ZiprHead]

ZiprHead is the one supporting her competition, and while he supports it with well founded science and observations so far, it's relatively muddy, untested water he stands in when erring on the side of caution is warranted.

Who said I supported it? I previously said I did not.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is not that I won't use them. I will respond to them as any free person ought: with a sword.

Dude, what the actual fucking fuck?

You are busy insisting that other people use language that they disagree with, and which is representative of a fantasy, because it has been "requested" by people that YOU support... but you respond to requests to use language that you disagree with by threatening violence?

That's... abhorrent.

.. Language that demands, of it's form, supplication.

I will worship no god, king, or lord except by the choices I make so as to understand the world better, if that can even be called worship.

Asking anyone to is abhorrent. We've been through this. All of the revolutions in the world and the founding documents of my own country say I have the right to banish tyrants by whatever "sword" it takes.

So either someone accepts that I not give them that "honor" of having the kind of sword a wizard may make leveled at them behind every lesser threat it requires, or they accept the consequences of their demands to the extent they cling to them.

"Woman" is offered freely as an element of discourse on the basis of mere asking for many of not most, and mere assumptions for the rest.

Titles of fealty demand acceptance of power over, aquiescence to that demand of fealty. The other does not.

This is the difference: when power over others is demanded.

I ask zero people and afford zero people the respect of fealty. I offer those who try to leverage it all power I have to deprive them of their badly-wielded leverage entirely. I freely offer the respect of "man" and "woman", and even "tiny dragon". All of the things are yours to have, except the respect of fealty*.

ZiprHead is the one supporting her competition, and while he supports it with well founded science and observations so far, it's relatively muddy, untested water he stands in when erring on the side of caution is warranted.

Who said I supported it? I previously said I did not.

My bad. I took your post as "support". I guess nobody here supports it at all, which is all the more point that this is about some folks wanting to call Lia a "man" more than to protect people from competing with those they ought not be expected to.

Personally, I can define why and what I think appropriateness hinges on, and on what basis I can say "no, this is not OK." I have done so many times. I could get into much greater depth on it!

I'm not sure Lia particularly likes other people seeing her genitals either. That was the first thing that made me understand I wasn't like the others in the locker room when I was a kid, or in the army for that matter: a lot of people talked about looking but I always thought it was rude and kind of gross. I don't actually recall a single instance of pointing the middle of my vision at someone else's exposed junk outside their request.

Even so, I don't think people have a right to never see a "penis", regardless of what that means to the person who is incensed that they saw one.

I would support the right to full public nudity. People would get cold and damaged easily?

But that's their right.

It's weird. My husband and I sat down to dinner and talked about some things.

One thing he talked about was a past boyfriend. At the time when he moved in with him he was 16, the boyfriend was 22.

I somehow didn't know these ages until tonight.

Why didn't his parents question it? Well, my husband's parents, much like some others, were blind to what was going on there, to the idea that someone "like that" could be a child predator.

My husband had been taken in by a predator.

Now Emily would call the predator a "woman".

That predator had been what they were and are long before they had been under the effects of testosterone.

*And statements of contradiction of material fact to material "benefit"., Or attempted benefit

 

[IIDB Staff]

This thread has devolved into brinking, goading bickering with the same comments and arguments going back and forth without offering new perspective or moving the discussion forward. If this continues, the thread will be locked, maybe for three days, or maybe forever.

If you find yourself getting heated and making the same comments and arguments to the same users over and over for years, maybe it's time to change tack in how you engage in this community.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hey man, can't prove a negative. You can prove a positive though. I want bomb to prove me wrong and yes, to shame me if this is not how he treats such discussions.

Jarhyn, what happened to you to make you so bloody arrogant? Why the devil do you feel you're the only one "Hey man, can't prove a negative. You can prove a positive though." applies to? Do you have a Jesus complex? What, anybody who doesn't say he's with you is against you? Why are you demanding I provide proof of an event I never said occurred? Exactly which part of "nonparticipation" don't you understand? Why are you proposing I should prove I said something in some random thread I didn't post in? Why do you take for granted that when evidence one way or the other on a question doesn't exist, the default "can't prove a negative" presumption about my position on that question is whatever damn position you feel like imputing to me?

Perhaps I AM confusing Bomb with someone else?

Obviously.

But still, he brings it up as if he has, he must have some time in mind.

No, that never happened either. I did not bring it up "as if I have" said I believed someone's claim. But you read everything others say through Jarhyn-tinted glasses; it cripples your reading comprehension ability. When I brought up rape, whether I or anyone else believed the accuser was immaterial to the point I was making. I was pointing out your double standard for interpreting absence of evidence as evidence of deceit. If you applied your inference rule for Christians, "reality itself shows them a liar", to rape accusers, then you would hold that reality itself shows a woman who charges rape but can't prove it is a liar and you would punish her for lying. That's the same mentality portrayed in "The Last Duel" -- reality itself in the form of trial by combat supposedly shows whether the alleged rape happened, so if Marguerite's champion loses the fight then she'll be burned at the stake for perjury. It's not about whether people believe her; it's about whether people are willing to accept "I don't know" when "yes" can't be proven and "no" can't be proven either.

I brought rape up because it's the most egregious and well-known situation where primitive backwards cultures apply your inference rule for dealing with lack of evidence. Mullahs flog or execute a woman for consensual sex if she can't prove she was raped because their stunted minds aren't intellectually up to the challenge of allowing a case to end with a so-called "Scotch verdict", a.k.a. "not proven".

I believe the real-life Le Gris raped the real-life Marguerite; but that's beside the point. Even if I believed their sex was probably consensual, the King had no proof it was consensual, and it would be wrong for the King to convict Marguerite of perjury merely on account of suspicion. Likewise, I believe there was no God revealing Himself to the Christian, but belief isn't proof and it's wrong for you to convict the Christian of perjury merely on account of suspicion. You're wrong: reality itself does not show them a liar. Is your mind intellectually up to the challenge of allowing your case against the Christian to end with a Scotch verdict?

Bomb obviously cares enough to call me wrong, to believe me wrong. To claim I am wrong. He can do as I claim is possible and let reality shame me. Or he can make claims without evidence

Please explain what evidence would satisfy you that it is possible for me to supply from a thread I didn't participate in.

You are the one making the assertion and accusations.

The burden of proof is on you.
Feel free.
Tom

To prove someone never said something? Are you serious.

He could as easily say something NOW. Like, about any such case.

Are you serious? It will satisfy you and you'll apologize if I say something NOW? I'll believe that when I see it. Yes, I think it's more likely than not that Kavenaugh attempted to sexually assault Ford. Yes, I think it's more likely than not that Jacques Le Gris raped Marguerite de Carrouges. But my opinion is irrelevant. The fact is, it's not proven.

 

[Jarhyn]

Are you serious? It will satisfy you and you'll apologize if I say something NOW? I'll believe that when I see it. Yes, I think it's more likely than not that Kavenaugh attempted to sexually assault Ford. Yes, I think it's more likely than not that Jacques Le Gris raped Marguerite de Carrouges.

I'm sorry. I was wrong and I was an asshole. Thank you for providing evidence even after the fact that you are at least willing to listen to someone when they claim they have been raped.

 

[TomC]

Since the warning posted a short time ago has not been heeded I'm locking the thread.
Tom