quote:

---

This trope of crotches and genitalia is just bad form. It's completely one sided, and the definition of a strawman argument. It's not exactly fostering a rational exchange of opinions when one side keeps accusing the other of something ridiculous.

Frankly, it just indicates that your position is incapable of rational defense.

---

How many DNA swabs have you received from your friends and acquaintances? None. So your constant fall back to genetics is futile in this conversation. This is not how we interact. This is not how we assign pronouns.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Give "woman" a second definition then! I'm not against the changing of the word, I'm against destroying it by taking away it's exclusivity.

---

Clarify this, please. My interpretation is that giving a 'second definition' is taking away it's exclusivity.

---

A second definition makes a word less exclusive, but it doesn't take away its exclusivity entirely. Allowing those who identify as transgender to be included in "man" and "woman" takes away all exclusivity.

Being transgender, regardless of whether it's a choice, is defined by self-identification. If I say that I am, you can't say that I'm not. By your proposed definition that includes transgendered people, that would allow literally anyone to say they were either sex. That's unacceptable to me, and the definition of non-exclusive. The words man and woman would have no concrete meaning. They would still be used how they are now, but I see no reason to erase meaning of a word because some people don't like it. I want a definition which keeps exclusivity.

---

Man and woman already don't have concrete meaning you girl. Literally anybody right now can say their man or woman and you don't validate the truth of any of their statements and I haven't seen any evidence anybody is remotely harmed by this

quote:

---

We're into 10 pages now. I may have overlooked these examples, but this thread is too long now for me to go on another adventure to find them, and I do not possess perfect recall of every argument made by every poster. If you don't mind being brief, what are these examples.

---

Look up AIS and Klinefelter's, or for that matter any form of chromosomal intersex.

quote:

---

The parts between your legs, hoo haa, diddly parts, and other euphemisms we've used on this thread for genitalia were simply proxy's for your "chromosomes and sex you were born with." I don't think it's unfair to treat "physical genitalia" and "chromosomes and sex you were born with" as synonymous.

---

They aren't synonymous. Sex is chromosomally defined immediately upon fertilization. A fetus is male/female before developing genitalia.

As stated, not always, which in itself invalidates this whole overly semantical argument y'all have been having.

I know there are exceptions. Just proving the distinction between physiology and genetics.

quote:

---

A second definition makes a word less exclusive, but it doesn't take away its exclusivity entirely. Allowing those who identify as transgender to be included in "man" and "woman" takes away all exclusivity.

---

I'm still not following. I thought you were adding a second definition to "man" so both a transgendered FtM and a "natural born" male would both be a "man". So, im confused on your second sentence.

quote:

---

quote:

---

A second definition makes a word less exclusive, but it doesn't take away its exclusivity entirely. Allowing those who identify as transgender to be included in "man" and "woman" takes away all exclusivity.

---

I'm still not following. I thought you were adding a second definition to "man" so both a transgendered FtM and a "natural born" male would both be a "man". So, im confused on your second sentence.

---

Light switches have "on" and "off". Why do we even have those words? To distinguish two concepts: light bulb on and light bulb off. On is an exclusive term; off is an exclusive term. Why do we print them on the switch? So people know. How do people know? Because everyone agrees on terms.

What if the ons wanted to be offs? Some people agree because why not? It makes them feel better. Printing them on switches becomes pointless, because people won't know, because nobody agrees on terms, exclusivity is lost and the distinction is lost.

The switch still works though. The concept is still there. One position turns on the light, one position turns it off. I guess we just need to print "biological on" and "biological off."

quote:

---

Light switches have "on" and "off". Why do we even have those words? To distinguish two concepts: light bulb on and light bulb off. On is an exclusive term; off is an exclusive term. Why do we print them on the switch? So people know. How do people know? Because everyone agrees on terms.

What if the ons wanted to be offs? Some people agree because why not? It makes them feel better. Printing them on switches becomes pointless, because people won't know, because nobody agrees on terms, exclusivity is lost and the distinction is lost.

The switch still works though. The concept is still there. One position turns on the light, one position turns it off. I guess we just need to print "biological on" and "biological off."

---

"On" also means an object is physically on top of something else. When someone says "the light is on", no one goes "What is the light on to of?!?! I'm so confused?!?! I wish we had a different word so I wasn't so confused!"

Why is this? Context.

My question is simple: What's the real world application where its vital for me to know the distinction between a FtM "male" and a biological "male" that's not covered by this context of the topic at hand. I've given you several examples of where context helps you.

Everyone is talking like this confusion will destroy society, or (as aggiegamecock suggested) will cause us to revert back to caveman talk. It should be easy to provide these examples.

Person A: Turn on the light.
Person B: It is on.
Person A: No it's not.
Person B: Yes it is.
ad infinitum

thats great. now give me the transgender equivalent.

quote:

---

thats great. now give me the transgender equivalent.

---

Person A: Tell that lady in the red dress her lights are on.
Person B: How do you know what gender she is? She may identify as a man.
Person A: Just do it you idiot.

quote:

---

Person A: Just do it you idiot.

---

Sounds like Person A solved it Person B. No issue in using the same term for both.

Moral of the story. Don't be an idiot.

quote:

---

quote:

---

thats great. now give me the transgender equivalent.

---

Person A: Tell that lady in the red dress her lights are on.
Person B: What lady are you talking about? I haven't seen down their pants or tested their DNA.
Person A: Just do it you idiot.

---

FIFY

When it comes down to it you guys want to cry that gender is only what is in your pants or your dna but in the real world 99% of the people we identify as him or her are people we have never verified their genitals or checked their DNA. If it's all about DNA and or genitals then why is it something we never examine before using pronouns?

quote:

---

Person A: Turn on the light.
Person B: It is on.
Person A: No it's not.
Person B: Yes it is.
ad infinitum

---

This assumes that we are talking about a binary equation but I hope you never refer to anybody as him or her without examining their crotch or examining their DNA. I see by your posting history you've either examined the crotch of most posters or checked their DNA because you use a lot of pronouns. That's astounding because I've never examined an Internet posters DNA or crotch and you e apparently examined everybody's.

quote:

---

Because you can usually tell, and it doesn't usually influence how you should treat someone.

---

Oh can you? How do you know when you can't if you aren't inspecting crotches and DNA? I bet you can tell who is gay as well by who talks with a lisp and wears black leather with boas.

Not mine, before that rumor starts. The only "sock" I ever had was ATAG, and I've admitted that and why.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because you can usually tell, and it doesn't usually influence how you should treat someone.

---

Oh can you? How do you know when you can't if you aren't inspecting crotches and DNA? I bet you can tell who is gay as well by who talks with a lisp and wears black leather with boas.

---

Lol. You're arguing that you can't usually tell someone's sex from looking at them? Good luck.

---

Oh, now you don't care about precision or accuracy? Now it just has to be usually correct? It's all about genitals and DNA but we don't have to actually examine that since our passing observation is usually correct. This is for accuracy's sake because if a ftm is called her all language will break down so we better go by our observations which are usually correct.

Wasn't out to family and friends at that point. Outed myself pdq afterwards but

You have *****ed this whole thread that words mean things and that precision in language is valuable and made abundantly clear that DNA defines sex yet when it comes to employing pronouns and descriptors of gender you don't check DNA of people and instead exclaim that most of the time we can tell what gender a person is by looks. Does DNA matter or doesn't it? Does precision in deploying these terms matter or not? You readily admit you call a person whatever you observe them to be which is most often how they present themselves but piss and moan about the importance of these terms that you don't validate before using to describe others.

Stop being so irrational lady.

Pretty Damned Quick.

11 pages on a thread that should have been beer blasted.