Serious PC thread

[Federberg]

I honestly don't understand your question, which was "Are you really claiming that creating gender neutral verbiage is the same thing as assigning the wrong gender pronoun to a person?" What do you mean by "assigning the wrong gender pronoun to a person?" Which one is the "wrong" one, in terms of your question?

Yes, I am deflecting it to the other thread, because I'm tired of having this conversation with you guys. It goes nowhere.

I put up some thoughtful comments on the effect of the new abortion laws in the US, and all I get back is trolling even this thread on the trans issue. SMH.

I asked the question in response to this from you...

As a counter to your language worries, consider this, (though I don't know how terms changed in Ireland, so you may not be able to answer in the way a man in the US would): some time in the 70s, we, in the US began to replace male-centric words with gender-neutral ones: "chairperson" for "chairman," "spokesperson" for "spokesman," etc. Those were good choices, in order to make women feel more included in the workplace, in particular, and went some way to aiding women. Did it "erase" men? It did not.

Hope that clarifies the context. So I repeat...Are you really claiming that creating gender neutral verbiage (e.g., chairperson) is the same thing as assigning the wrong gender pronoun to a person?

 

[Moxie]

you're far too smart to act ignorant. Given the debate you're having on this thread it was a valid question. I never expected intellectual cowardice from you

I'm not pleading ignorance, I'm pleading indifference to your fairly uninteresting video. And you, however, don't answer my question: do you have an opinion on my comment? Don't be so passive-aggressive. You want answers, but don't provide them from your side. It was your video, after all.

 

[Kieran]

We would have been better served via your system with Roe v. Wade at the time it was decided.

I think so. Roe was so divisive in a country which is naturally divided along a two party system. It’ll probably take a while but eventually you’ll have a system in place - though it maybe different from state to state.

I don't believe that the term "woman" has become meaningless. I don't feel "demeaned" nor "erased." I think that's, frankly, silly. I don't want to go around and around on this. And I won't be goaded into a conversation about it here, but no one on this forum seems to think that trans men threaten the meaning of "man." No one around here asks 1,000 times for us to define "man." Take it back to the PC thread and leave me out of it, please.

Hey you joined in, stop complaining! If the word Woman isn’t meaningless, then obviously I’m bound to ask you to tell me what the word means. Don’t worry, I know you don’t want to go into all this but - the word has become meaningless if we follow innovative leftist beliefs.

God, I hate that term "straw man." Talk about terms made up for the internet. I have to look it up every time, and still I don't really understand it. I swear it gets misused. Note that I didn't accuse you of that. Don't tell me what I've accepted, and please leave off the trans conversation with me.

I took it that you meant straw man when you said you didn’t want to discuss trans with me ‘exactly because of how you posed the question above.’ It implies I posed a question dishonestly or sneakily. I looked and can’t even find the question you’re complaining about.

Maybe it was Federberg, then. It was on the Serious PC thread, and I've left that. I'm not going back to look for it. I still believe it's a manufactured issue. To keep it on-topic here, by that I mean in American politics. When the Republicans conceded same-sex marriage, they searched around for a new hot-button issue to rile up the base, and nothing stuck until they hit on transgender issues. Given what a small percentage of the population that it actually affects, it's a cynical ploy to whip up hysteria.

It’s not a cynical ploy at all - the cynical ploy is to try normalise a blatant lie at the expense of everyone, most especially women and abused children. You really have a very wilful blind spot when it comes to ignoring the abuses…

 

[Kieran]

I honestly don't understand your question, which was "Are you really claiming that creating gender neutral verbiage is the same thing as assigning the wrong gender pronoun to a person?" What do you mean by "assigning the wrong gender pronoun to a person?" Which one is the "wrong" one, in terms of your question?

Yes, I am deflecting it to the other thread, because I'm tired of having this conversation with you guys. It goes nowhere.

I put up some thoughtful comments on the effect of the new abortion laws in the US, and all I get back is trolling even this thread on the trans issue. SMH.

Nobody is trolling. My replies have been to your replies. You’re not being trolled, you just have been wholly unable to defend the leftist ideology you believe…

 

[Moxie]

I asked the question in response to this from you...

As a counter to your language worries, consider this, (though I don't know how terms changed in Ireland, so you may not be able to answer in the way a man in the US would): some time in the 70s, we, in the US began to replace male-centric words with gender-neutral ones: "chairperson" for "chairman," "spokesperson" for "spokesman," etc. Those were good choices, in order to make women feel more included in the workplace, in particular, and went some way to aiding women. Did it "erase" men? It did not.

Hope that clarifies the context. So I repeat...Are you really claiming that creating gender neutral verbiage (e.g., chairperson) is the same thing as assigning the wrong gender pronoun to a person?

I understood that first part. But you still didn't answer the second part: what is the "wrong" gender pronoun, in terms of your question. That's all I was asking.

And I am really uninterested in going back to this debate with you guys, for the record. Would SO love to talk about some more substantive.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not pleading ignorance, I'm pleading indifference to your fairly uninteresting video. And you, however, don't answer my question: do you have an opinion on my comment? Don't be so passive-aggressive. You want answers, but don't provide them from your side. It was your video, after all.

another deflection. But I'll humour you. Even though I asked you a question first What was your question? I can only hope you'll do me the courtesy of responding once you get your answer.

 

[Kieran]

I understood that first part. But you still didn't answer the second part: what is the "wrong" gender pronoun, in terms of your question. That's all I was asking.

And I am really uninterested in going back to this debate with you guys, for the record. Would SO love to talk about some more substantive.

Sorry but I have to reply.

This is substantive. You just don’t want to discuss because you can’t defend the left and it’s abuses. Just don’t reply then, because I’m only replying here to your replies, and all of your replies make little of the abuse of children and women…

 

[Moxie]

I think so. Roe was so divisive in a country which is naturally divided along a two party system. It’ll probably take a while but eventually you’ll have a system in place - though it maybe different from state to state.

It was not divisive when it was decided. It was Reagan that started to take it on and help create the Moral Majority. At that time, there was no Christian agenda in politics. Or, say, for my mother, it was to vote for policies that benefitted the poor. She saw that as her Christian duty. This has been eroding access to abortion and women's health care for a long time now. I feel this is the real issue. Women having to go out-of-state to seek care is not a good thing. Losing healthcare providers because they've been intimidated by draconian laws is not a good thing.

Hey you joined in, stop complaining! If the word Woman isn’t meaningless, then obviously I’m bound to ask you to tell me what the word means. Don’t worry, I know you don’t want to go into all this but - the word has become meaningless if we follow innovative leftist beliefs.

I knew this would happen. I tried to tell you I didn't want to talk about it, but you kept on. I wanted to talk about something in US politics, but you mixed it all in. If I ignored part of your post, it wouldn't explain all. So I approached with caution, and caveats. But don't blame me. I've been trying to tell you to keep this where it belongs.

I took it that you meant straw man when you said you didn’t want to discuss trans with me ‘exactly because of how you posed the question above.’ It implies I posed a question dishonestly or sneakily. I looked and can’t even find the question you’re complaining about.

Of course you can't. Because you're blinded to it. I neglected to "bold" it because I've been trying not to engage with it. But this, for example: "You’ve never explained why you think that activists abusing young children and attacking women at marches where they demand to be heard as women is not something that feminists should be concerned about. In fact, you take the side of the oppressors." You have also asked me in the form of a question why I don't respond about activists "abusing children." It's because the question is formed with your opinion imbedded. Look how many opinions you imbedded in the statement I quoted there. THAT to me is straw man, and I don't see any point in responding, because it's like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You've decided so much before I even have a chance to respond. I don't refuse because I can't, but because you're actually being unfair.

 

[Federberg]

I understood that first part. But you still didn't answer the second part: what is the "wrong" gender pronoun, in terms of your question. That's all I was asking.

ah! Got you.. a male asking to be gendered she/her. Or female asking to be gendered he/his.. would have thought that. was obvious. But there. you go. Question answered??

 

[Moxie]

another deflection. But I'll humour you. Even though I asked you a question first What was your question? I can only hope you'll do me the courtesy of responding once you get your answer.

Now you really ARE being passive-aggressive. Or lazy. You're not capable of looking back at your own post? It was about Kieran saying to me that I was being "erased," and I told him to stop telling me that I was, when I didn't feel so. Your comment?

 

[Moxie]

Sorry but I have to reply.

This is substantive. You just don’t want to discuss because you can’t defend the left and it’s abuses. Just don’t reply then, because I’m only replying here to your replies, and all of your replies make little of the abuse of children and women…

For another thread. I know it matters to you, and I know your opinions, even though I find them extreme. Please don't co-opt this thread, too.

 

[Kieran]

It was not divisive when it was decided.

It should never have been decided that way, we agreed on this.

I knew this would happen. I tried to tell you I didn't want to talk about it, but you kept on. I wanted to talk about something in US politics, but you mixed it all in. If I ignored part of your post, it wouldn't explain all. So I approached with caution, and caveats. But don't blame me. I've been trying to tell you to keep this where it belongs.

It belongs here. I understand you don’t want to talk about it, while I also see you’re still passing your opinions and misrepresenting others here. Leave it if you want to leave it. Go ahead!

Of course you can't. Because you're blinded to it. I neglected to "bold" it because I've been trying not to engage with it. But this, for example: "You’ve never explained why you think that activists abusing young children and attacking women at marches where they demand to be heard as women is not something that feminists should be concerned about. In fact, you take the side of the oppressors." You have also asked me in the form of a question why I don't respond about activists "abusing children." It's because the question is formed with your opinion imbedded. Look how many opinions you imbedded in the statement I quoted there. THAT to me is straw man, and I don't see any point in responding, because it's like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You've decided so much before I even have a chance to respond. I don't refuse because I can't, but because you're actually being unfair.

So now it is a straw man?

And yet….. that was not a question. It was a statement, which began by telling you that ‘you’ve never explained…’

It’s not a strawman either to say that you defend the abuse of children. You always defend it because you defend the activists who are abusing children. You’ve been given so many examples of child abuse, trans wings in hospitals being closed because of abuse, and videos of whistle blowers telling the extent of it, and you never express at all a single doubt that shows that maybe you think the activists in control are doing something wrong…

 

[Federberg]

Now you really ARE being passive-aggressive. Or lazy. You're not capable of looking back at your own post? It was about Kieran saying to me that I was being "erased," and I told him to stop telling me that I was, when I didn't feel so. Your comment?

I just answered ffs...(a male asking to be gendered she/her. Or female asking to be gendered he/his.. ) I honestly didn't see it. If I'm being passive aggressive What are you demonstrating right now? Blatant cowardice. Those were your words in this thread!

Now I see you have another one, and still not responding to my question. Pathetic! But again.. I'll humour you. I asked you a question specifically about that, about students being offended on behalf of Mexicans. You say you have an issue with Kieran being concerned that this whole transgender thing has the potential to erase women. Ergo.. you take issue with him being offended on behalf of women. Why is that different from students being offended on behalf of Mexicans?

 

[Kieran]

For another thread. I know it matters to you, and I know your opinions, even though I find them extreme. Please don't co-opt this thread, too.

Even though you find them extreme. You can’t help yourself…

 

[Federberg]

Even though you find them extreme. You can’t help yourself…

it's like the twilight zone! She says stuff. She's talked about this identity stuff, and somehow we're the ones bringing that stuff here. Unbelievable!

 

[Kieran]

it's like the twilight zone! She says stuff. She's talked about this identity stuff, and somehow we're the ones bringing that stuff here. Unbelievable!

And as if it’s not a US politics issue…

 

[Moxie]

ah! Got you.. a male asking to be gendered she/her. Or female asking to be gendered he/his.. would have thought that. was obvious. But there. you go. Question answered??

I don't think I equated in any way, mis-gendering a person with creating gender neutral verbiage/nouns. That is a completely different issue, now that I understand your question. You said above that it was a "serious question." I don't see how it was. Either you don't understand why words like "legislator" rather than "congressman" have come into usage, or you don't. How you feel about "misgendering" a person, which I didn't bring up, is for your Serious PC thread.

 

[Moxie]

Now I see you have another one, and still not responding to my question. Pathetic! But again.. I'll humour you. I asked you a question specifically about that, about students being offended on behalf of Mexicans. You say you have an issue with Kieran being concerned that this whole transgender thing has the potential to erase women. Ergo.. you take issue with him being offended on behalf of women. Why is that different from students being offended on behalf of Mexicans?

You forgot my question, which was, how do YOU feel about what Kieran said? You promised to answer. And I already told you that I thought your students vs Mexicans video was childish.

 

[Federberg]

I don't think I equated in any way, mis-gendering a person with creating gender neutral verbiage/nouns. That is a completely different issue, now that I understand your question. You said above that it was a "serious question." I don't see how it was. Either you don't understand why words like "legislator" rather than "congressman" have come into usage, or you don't. How you feel about "misgendering" a person, which I didn't bring up, is for your Serious PC thread.

Lol! You’re caught in a logic trap of your own making. You know perfectly well why the question was asked. But I’ll leave it. It’s clear that you’re ducking. I can only hope you’re reflecting on this privately

 

[Federberg]

You forgot my question, which was, how do YOU feel about what Kieran said? You promised to answer. And I already told you that I thought your students vs Mexicans video was childish.

If I wasn’t clear then let me make it clear. I FEEL that it’s a valid point. Just like a lot of gay people particularly lesbians feel that transgenderism is an attempt to erase them. You only have to look at what’s going on in Iran for hard confirmation. Gay people are being forcibly transitioned in some cases as parents don’t want homosexual children