I am not afraid of trans people existence. I don't give a **** at all about all people who can't materially affect my life lol. I just want to guarantee the fact that trans exist, can't be used to affect my life or that of people i care about negatively.

There is no hate, i stated my position very clearly and you will be reported if you keep insulting me personally with lies.

My position is that adult trans people should be free to do literally want they want with their body , on their own money, and self-identify *with whomever gives a ***** as they please.

Taxpayers should never be involved with anything related to trans-ness, as it is not a disease, minors shouldn't be touched at all by the topic in any way or form by the state directly or indirectly, and no law or regulation should be changed accounting for the existence of trans people, who exist, but whose existence should be treated the same as the existence of red hair people. A completly irrelevant characteristic of those people with no legal consequences ever.

and now you've given up the facade at least

Report away it's insane that you're allowed to post. You reject the existence and openly discriminate against millions of people and insist on murdering practically anyone who disagrees wit you. I agree the government shouldn't pass any trans legislation, but your post is self contradictory as you seem to imply anti-trans legislation

Given the way you declare definitions of words invalid, I have no idea. But one area I can think of that has been discussed in this thread would be elementary school sports. Bathroom use would be another.

Again, LOL. To the best of my knowledge, homophobia and transphobia have always had this meaning - they would be rather useless words if they meant nothing more than "fear of". Just because you don't like the way a suffix is being used doesn't make a poster wrong when they use a word in the same way as every English dictionary I've ever seen. And it certainly doesn't make you correct when you assert the poster is deciding the definition. The poster was using the dictionary definition, and you're the one who wants to "decide the meaning of words".

Unfortunately, in the last 30 years or so, words have aquired expanded meanings in a way that confuses things and makes the language worse

When homophobia adds the meanings of hatred or discrimination against homosexuals, now there is no word that specifically means fear of them.

I believe in the past it was used for such things as people not wanting gay teachers in their kids' schools (afraid it will turn them gay), or for a man who killed another man for hitting on him.

At some point it would be nice if you said what you mean. I posed a hypothetical where segregation is ended to potentially solve a problem. I don't think coed anything will work in the real world, but it could in theory.

I don't think you are fascist, but probably racist based on your random rants.

FYP. This is nothing new - language evolves, and not always for the better.

Is this really a big problem? Both of your examples are "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals". In the first example, I suppose in the past one could argue that was a fear based in ignorance, but I would hope we're beyond that sort of thing now. And in the second case, I can't see why a distinction would need to be made. Does it really matter if the person literally hated all gay men, or just had an irrational fear of them? I don't think a lack of a distinct word for "fear of homosexuals" is causing much of an issue these days.

i've always said exactly what i mean, i think you just struggle to see your own inconsistencies and are thus quite confused, you wouldn't first person to put the blinders on for their own behavior

and please, quote a single racist post of mine or otherwise apologize or just never post again

As i told Uke i'm not saying anything remotely original. It's philosophy 101 and many other fields 101, I'm sure.

Not everyone has your 5 paragraph essay in their heads when they hear that question. That's what it means to you. To others it means something else. That's exactly why it's a pretty much meaningless question.

It's very vague and could be answered many ways, but there really isn't an intelligent answer other than asking for clarification, or perhaps referring to the dictionary.

There's no point in discussing very vague claims or questions and words with unspecified meanings.

If you don't like trucks, there are endless examples of vague claims/questions and ambiguous language or multifaceted words.

the you deciding the meaning was intended to be "your tribe" (lolwat tribe). I simply refuse to bend the knee to leftists deciding the meaning of any word.

if in some cases they happen to manage to write the dictionary, that doesn't change my point.

btw the inventor of homophobia (Weinberg) claimed any form of aversion or dislike of homosexuality was a mental disease.

people who expanded that to trans-phobia and other -phobias thus are calling people who disagree with them mentally ill (in violation of forum rules).

the use of x-phobia by the left dramatically expands the fear to "any form of disagreement with the left on the topic" and at the same time claim that's fully irrational and derogatory. that made up word means "you disagree with the left on the topic and that's not allowed"

accepting such a word can be used is giving up on the topic to every point the left wants to make on it. they can change their preferences on the topic at hand and the word follows them.

example, it is now transphobic and discriminatory according to a portion of people on the left, for an heterosexual man to dislike dicks, because women can have dicks and an heterosexual man is supposed to like women.

same for a lesbian.

it's not that if dictionaries get written 2, or 5, years from now, including that, that it becomes true.

the made up by the left insult was never true and will never become true, it will never be a word we should dignify with meaning.

there is a war about language ongoing.

same with words like fascism, racism and so on. and there is a pattern by the left, making up new words or completely warp the meaning of old words, in the constant attempt to deny people who disagree with any leftist claim about anything the possibility of even debating their ideas.

you are transphobic, so you can't discuss the topic. you are racist. you are fascist. those are conversation enders, labels meaning just "you appear to disagree with us and that is not allowed".

and I won't be silenced by leftists.

fear is irrational so intellectually inferior; a dislike can be subjective (so as rational as liking something, just purely arbitrary and as valid) or justified rationally.

they don't use (yet?) pedo-phobic, because even some people on the left still think there might be valid reasons to dislike pedophiles (although the left is hard at work to try to normalize pedophily these days).

it is a big problem if it becomes not allowed to even discuss the possibility that there might be rational reasons to dislike a group of people or that not liking every group the same is not allowed and irrational.

a negation of the subjectivity of preferences, the constant attempt to claim that exclusively their group preferences are allowed, that only they have the rational, superior position and so on.

an exceptionally violent attempt to control all political discourse, completely incompatible with civil society.

thank you for your service!

Um...OK, then.

No one accused anyone of being transphobic for not hooking up with a transgender person. I called you all transphobic because of your opinions that conflict with mainstream science and the desire to erase trans people from public life.

Randomly posing this hypothetical in a trans thread indicates something may be hot on your mind:

It really came out of left field and you seem interested in the subject. Does this prove your racist? No. Does it indicate how you think about race? Yes. You sound like a grumpy old redneck using slightly better words to be racist.

The people on your team , those whose theories who regurgitate constantly, do it.

And disagreement with a PORTION of science which is NOT the consensus in most countries is not aversion to trans-ness.

And i didn't ask to ERASE anyone ffs, stop making up things. I am not asking to criminalize men who dress like women. Or to ban them from public life.

I am asking not to subsidize their choices and preferences with public money at any step, and to keep your dirty hands and "science" away from minors.

Is a lesbian transphobic if she does not want to have sex with trans women? Some lesbians say they are increasingly being pressured and coerced into accepting trans women as partners - then shunned and even threatened for speaking out. Several have spoken to the BBC, along with trans women who are concerned about the issue too.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385

IT'S NOT AN HYPOTHETICAL. The people you are supporting, whose insane theories you are alleging are "mainstream consensus" against facts, say it

Luciom you're so cool. You play the best disinformation games. Can you share your "science" sources that reject gender and assert it's not real?

Here's one proving consensus:

Quote:

Before the mid-20th century, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[3][1] In the West, in the 1970s, feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. The distinction between gender and sex is made by most contemporary social scientists in Western countries

This isn't a factual premise to begin an argument from. You start with misinformation, then layer all sorts of evil on top, and play the coolest word games. I hope those words are used well enough for you Mr. Fascisto Disinformatico.

gender theory isn't only about the existence of gender as separated (yet usually very strongly correlated with) biological sex, which is not the part i am denying.

Gender theory is about many ulterior things as for ex the idea that gender can only and strictly be self-identified (no possible external objective validation of it) , and many other elements we discussed ITT ("trans women are women" and so on). Denial of biological sex dimorphism is part of gender theory as well.

As for what consensus is *check the legal systems of countries* not wikipedia jfc.

And using FEMINISM, which is an ultra-contested RADICAL LEFTIST IDEOLOGY as proof of CONSENSUS (which means the almost totality of people of all political affiliation blatantly agree with it, that's what consensus means) is exactly the violent tactics you guys apply all the times.

You invent a consensus that doesn't exist, because among yourself there is consensus, and you claim that PROVES you are right lol. And that it gives you the legal rationale to mandate your preferences.

You think that "feminist theory" is a science?

"western social scientists" these days are almost all leftists. These denies any intellectual and scientifical validity of any of their findings, and agreements among themselves only prove agreement AMONG LEFTISTS, not consensus.

For them if it's peer reviewed it's science (unless of course the conclusions disagree with leftism, in which case it's fake science).

"social science" itself is almost never science to begin with but they think putting the word science in makes it science.

I don't know from which reputable source that paragraph came, but it specifically says that gender is a social construct.

When many here on the left reply to something about race, they say that race is a social construct, which means it's not real, and was basically invented to have a reason to classify others as inferior.

But you think that saying gender is a social construct means that it is real?
Sure seems like the opposite to me.

"social construct" means whatever they decide it to mean. It would be a useful expression but the way they use it, it isn't.

Money is a social construct and it's very real with very tangible effects. But it's a social construct in the actual useful sense of having value because we collectively decided it does.

Gender can't be a social construct in the sense they mean it, because it is not determined by collective fiat rather by the single individual IN THEIR OWN MODEL. So they change the meaning of social construct to mean something else.

It's word salad masturbation all the way down in every leftist approach to describe reality.

They took from religion: ambiguity and double meaning and the use of a lot of made up words (which they define as they want allow the clerics (the "social scientists" and their disciples and their political representatives and so on) to claim literally anything they want all the times.

The easiest solution for non radical leftists is to simply throw away the entire intellectual production of radical leftists, in every field, disregard it completly as utter trash , never dignify it with meaning or value, and treat anyone who uses it to "prove" something the same we would treat flat-earth people and the like.

If you believe sex is immutable, gender is mutable, and aren't fearful of transgender people, why do you hate trans activists? It looks like a bunch nonsense word games to discriminate against trans. Especially when you look at the policies being pushed by people voicing the same opinions.

I agree with everything you guys say except the hatred and discrimination parts.

The status quo is sex segregation with rare exceptions. I'm a conservative FFS not a leftist. Stop with the name calling.

I don't believe gender is mutable. I believe it can very very rarely be different from biological sex. I don't believe it exists on a spectrum though: non-binary. fluid and so on are completly false ideas of human reality.

I hate trans activists because they want to violently force their view of the world through laws to me.

I listed the topics:

1) they want to imprison people with dicks togheter with women (yes segregation in prisons IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT WOMEN FROM MEN CRIMINALS)

2) they want people with dicks to play women sports . We created women sports to let them have a chance of winning, otherwise they can't win if it's not segregated by sex, in almost any sport. The best men are better than the best women at 99% + of sports.

3) They want to drug and mutilate minors because they feel their gender is opposite to their biological sex. This is the main one for many people.

The status quo is not sex segregation for most things. We don't segregate in schools, in the workplace, in public areas, in private areas (in the west: in the islamic world they often do).

We do segregate where it makes sense, which is in a few areas, where the objective measurable difference between biological men and biological women creates a disadvantage for women so great, segregation is necessary. We segregate TO HELP WOMEN FLOURISH.

So trans activism is directly opposed to women rights basically, as a growing number of women are trying to tell you.

The list of laws you linked to isn't a list of discriminating laws. Try to check those, the actual provisions. Banning "trans care" for minors isn't discrimination. it's claiming that people should wait for absolute certainty of a disconnect between biological sex and gender before operating irreversible choices on their bodies.

Or anyway, that minors who can't drink a beer because the legal system considers them not mature enough, certainly can't be mature enough to consent to significant permanent changes to their bodies.

If you consider it "DISCRIMINATORY" to disagree with radical leftists about when a person is mature enough to be able to decide to permanently change his body, so be it. But that's actually an "age of consent" debate, not a trans debate.

Is any state banning "trans care" for adults? that would be discriminatory.

Is requiring an ID to indicate the biological sex discriminatory? why? and so on.

The radical left wants to call anything related to trans somebody disagree about with them discrimination. You claim not to be a radical leftist, why do you take their side every time on this topic on everything? did you read each and everyone of those legislative proposals?

because you should never believe a radical leftist when he claims something. They are some of the most horribly bad faith people in society. Why do you believe anything they claim about anything?