woman who cried "rape" but had no witnesses or physical evidence
You show me the time that has happened and you actually believed her.
I can point to a number of incidents, including one involving a SCOTUS judge where said judge showed a calendar with a clear candidate for the night of the events therein clearly marked out, and a pattern of similar behavior and evasions on the subject and you still didn't believe the person who said a rape was attempted.
It's as if rape in this context is a red herring...
You have a blatant double standard for whether you regard requesting evidence for unscientific claims as causing the claimant or the requestor to become besmirched.
No, I really don't. I can show plenty of people who raped someone and lied about it. It's a low bar to believe a claim of rape, and oftentimes it is satisfied.
Start a topic on "definitions of god", and see how much I care, and whether you will be epically shamed as to how wrong you might be in your declarations as to which concept of language is tighter.
I recall another conversation where some hard determinists have been getting huffy over the topic of useful definitions.
You'd have to be a woman for it to be
No. You just need to be a "man" for it to be such, and lo, you claim "man" therefore when you do it in that way, it is mansplaining.
You really shouldn't tell others what they wish
I'll tell you exactly what it is you tell me you wish, or the implications of your wishes to the wishes that those implications imply.
The thing you pre-judge is everything else about them on the basis of you pre-judging their sex on the basis of your initial assessment of their physical appearance. It's prejudice all the way down, I'm afraid.
You could just ask them and let that be your guide.
But no, you decide to do exactly the thing that people are more and more every day understanding is really a fucked up thing to do: discussing what is in other people's pants.
As it is, we still have
@Metaphor stamping up and down and now throwing yet another tantrum exactly over me not using his preferred language and using words that imply genital configurations.
He doesn't understand even the difference between "binary" and "bimodal". He still thinks it's just one or the other when we have a lot of examples of people sitting outside the binary entirely, even, or in places that are more like complicated-curve-case than edge case.
He can't quite operate the transitive property long enough to strong together that if being born with a "penis" makes you a "male" means when you grow up you are a "man", saying someone is a "man" is also, by necessary implication also saying "they were born with a penis" and since that little look at birth is all most people get so as to bin them this way, it's effectively the reality of such uses of language.
I would much rather it not be so, and so would most other people. It is a few extremely vocal assholes who demand this transitive linkage on language that the rest of us understand may instead treat in "gender" terms.
I wonder what the next instance of behavior by a trans person will be used as an excuse to throw inappropriate language at people who aren't participants here so as to report it may be.
The reality is that sexual differentiation is complicated and bimodal, and that puberty is a big part of it, and the thing all that orbits around during those middle years is the presence or absence of testosterone, progesterone, and estrogen, and their ratios.
my solutions would put a snooze button on all this, instead of having a meaningless argument over semantics. Give up the semantics already. All the semantic argument does is make people who argue against giving someone a pronoun out to be assholes