Lets read the words the actual words of the poster who had a problem (who confirmed my supposition) with you wanting to have people reveal their status on IDs.

Read it, they said nothing about ID. He's mad and thinks I'm transphobic because I suggested it be a law that a trans person has to disclose to an unwitting lover before sexual activities. Not your ID bs. Falls into your "ETC" but honestly sick of playing this catch all game with you where I'm suppose to assume the content of your posts mean nothing and has no relation to anything that's actually going on.

Me, I think it was your suggestions about ID.

Master:

I don't understand man, now I'm actually not trying to insult you, are you having trouble with reading comprehension or do you only read the first sentence of peoples posts?

Is it possible to get more pot meet kettle into a post.

Only you require this much hand holding through a debate chain, but we are not even on the chain because you are you.

I'm broadly supportive of being honest and supporting as a sexual partner. I like the old maxim about trying to leave our partners better off than when we found them, not worse. So yes, *gasp* I think a passing trans person should - and almost certainly do - disclose that their genitals are likely different than expected at some point in the process when they feel safe and comfortable. However, what frustrates me about this conversation is that ONCE AGAIN we are focusing on ways in which trans people putatively harm cis people while offering no consideration to the many types of trauma that a trans person likely receives as they try to navigate the dating world. Even if we want to focus all the way down to something like "dating etiquette", to take only this one angle when it is presumptive trans people looking bad doesn't square up for me. And the suggestion that it should be legally mandated on IDs is preposterous.

Except they didn't outline anything about how they thought my suggestion about ID was transphobic, master may also believe that but that's not what he was saying. You'd know that if you had any context or were actually following along to the content of peoples posts. You won't find a post before now with master taking exception to my ID suggestion, and the only thing they have reiterated is the original thing they were upset about, which happens to be me saying it should be illegal to not disclose trans status, not the ID thing.

You'd also know this if you could follow their logic(silly logic, but still logic) in their argument as to why what I said is transphobic. They believe it would be a transpeople exclusive law, thus being inherently transphobic to require them to disclose. With ID that wouldn't be the case, because both cis people and transpeople would be labeled.

Try again pal.

Part of the reason why so many on the right feel so empowered to say the stuff they do, is because of comments like the above that everyone can see right through the disingenuous of.

They look at it, often rightly, as the left willing to gaslight and ignore real concerns to score points.

Communications are key but putting any type of reverse onus on a person who is the trusting, honest, non cheating one to ferret out from the other, that they are being also being honest, is, in itself a trust destroyer, and the left knows that and loves the trap it is, thinking only they see it.

'hey honey, I do love you and think you love me too but, can we just get a DNA to make sure???'.

DNA comes back it is your kid but your relationship is destroyed. Checkmate. Should have never asked and if then not yours, you are stuck. Checkmate again.

The easy answer to that is simply to put the obligation on the person WITH THE KNOWLEDGE to disclose as opposed to demanding the one without guess. Of course lefties will fight against that as again... checkmate.

I raised the question about whether people thought your claims about ID were transphobic and Master answered in the affirmative.

Ill wait on his testimony and not your perspective on your interchange before moving on from that affirmative because your testimony is not worth ****.

Which is the exact reason here we are stuck in u said no he said, which just does not happen with any poster but you.

Incorrect, you raised the assumption that the reason they think I'm transphobic is because of my off the wall proposed potential solution as ID designation and also put an "ETC"

Then master came in and said "yeah i told him what I was mad about, and its this: *something that had nothing to do with ID*" and now you are using that to declare victory.

You INTERPRETED masters words incorrectly, it's also easy to see you did because of the content of their posts and previous posts.

Master probably thinks the ID idea is transphobic, but if you asked them why they think I'm transphobic, it would certainly be the thing they have stated over 5 times, not something they've never said FFS.

It also just so happens the ID thing is a loaded thing, if nobody was transphobic the id designation would be fine, but the transphobes abuse it. Most people who want the trans designation want it so they can abuse it.

You don't need my testimony to prove you wrong because you can look at the dated posts and see when their objections were raised, and what they said their objections were. Not so shockingly you won't find ID!

You literally had similar disagreements with LOLLOL, so stop this "just you" stuff.

"The fact he wants to legislate legally deception by trans people specifically is the transphobic part" "The fact he wants to legislate legally deception by trans people specifically is the transphobic part" "The fact he wants to legislate legally deception by trans people specifically is the transphobic part" "The fact he wants to legislate legally deception by trans people specifically is the transphobic part"

What you got out of that.... SEE THEY AGREE WITH ME ON ID!

I also don't understand why we can't make the distinction on them being TRANSWOMEN.
They are women born in a mens body, by their own definition and that distinction isn't inherently transphobic.
This distinction should not be made when it comes to rights/respect, but there are two areas it does make sense; Sports, and Sexual interactions/consent.

I'm all for WOMEN, NON TRANSWOMEN, being banned from a league if they injected testosterone at the same levels that the transwoman receives through puberty. Of course there is nuance there, but it once again it isn't a targeted ban on transpeople. Yeah some of you will say but some women have higher testosterone naturally etc, those are the kind of adaptations that partly make sports interesting, not artificial levels or uneven playing fields.

Same way you should be able to say you like biological women, or exclude transwomen in your dating/sexual preferences. Why must we indulge a fantasy where we now ignore the "in a mans body" or "in a womans body" part?

They've asked to be called men/women, we've complied, now it's being weaponized to call anyone who recognizes the fact that biologically they have a man or womans body initially a bigot, as if saying "i am a man/woman" trumps everything else.

I can understand the science/theory of someone being a man or woman stuck in the opposing body. It's not absurd to me, and whatever you want to identify with I will call you, and I won't let people hate you strictly on that belief.

I can't understand someone identifying as a horse, but if they demanded they be called a horse I wouldn't actually mind, and if it was simple (didn't have to write a bunch of laws/keep track of all horse pronouns) I'd do it. I'd also demand you be treated with respect/not have hate crimes against you. But if you went and ****ed a horse while identifying as a horse, you're going to jail (mental ward actually). Or to be more polite, you won't be granted entrance into the kentucky derby, as a horse. Me calling you a horse didn't change the fact that biologically, you are human, and my concession to your pronoun hasn't changed my ideas on science.

So when I say you are a transwoman, and you say no I'm a woman treat me as such, and I say no you are a TRANSWOMAN, it's not me diminishing your womanhood, its making the accurate distinction that something separates you from the typical use of the word "woman" and that is a male body.

Clearly the word woman/man is outdated if trans theories are correct, and simply changing things to "cis leagues" and being able to have "cis only" distinctions on dating sites without them being boycotted, would suffice and stop a good amount of the useless bickering.

The standard term here is "cis women". Hope that helps.

FYI nothing about being trans changes how to conjugate words.

Comparing being trans with identifying as a horse is pretty gross. I remember 20 years ago in the marriage equality debates hearing expression like "what's next, will you be able to marry your horse?". I don't know wtf it is about horses, but maybe stay away from this particular comparison?

Saying non trans woman certainly means the same thing as cis, I showed there that I understand the distinction.

More grammar police nonsense. You know what I meant and in no way am I being hateful to trans or trying to promote hate.

I'm not equating being trans to identifying as a horse, because I said one is absurd and I don't believe it to be a real medical condition, and the other one I agreed could be possible. You know this though, and by your logic you won't be able to compare being trans to anything while trying to have a conversation. Horse is interchangeable with literally "anything that's not true", while you know I haven't questioned the transpersons truth.

In this response you have exemplified why it's so hard to have an honest conversation about any of this. Your pitchforks are sharpened before anything is even said, and you all gasp at anything that doesn't parrot exact alt left talking points.

You have nothing else to say?

Just trying to help you out with some standard terminology so you don't have to struggle around with "WOMEN, NON TRANSWOMEN" and look ignorant, and to keep your uh comparisons out of some well trod rhetorical ruts. Take it or leave it.

I use cis correctly in the same post. The whole post is arguing the term Woman/Women is outdated. I even did it for dramatic effect.

Care to come up with a "comparison" that is unlikely to be perceived as insulting/demeaning? If you are successful I will literally use it in the future. I don't think you can though, which is one of the problems. Always outrage over everything.

Also the comparison is the illogical and logical belief of something, not the horse=trans.

uke does not even accept the use of 'biologically women' without whining like a stuck baby and yet the few times i have called him out on his language choices he instantly cries not to 'tone police' him.

I think, he is of a belief, coming across like he does, in some way is helpful??

He is a uni prof, so at the forefront of political correct speech out of necessity and he can hardly hold himself back to virtue signal here how 'good' he truly is by being up on all the latest language.

lol, are we doing the “biowomen” thing again now?

I am bringing it back. I think I will use it exclusively from now on.

And rickroll thinks I’m not taking this thread seriously enough.

Has time to slag me off and read then disregard an entire post on the basis of a typo.

Has no time to clarify how I can be more polite to the group he is championing so hard for when it comes to actual substantial words/their comparisons.

Yeah Uke, you sure are trying to make things better!

So you did. Admittedly, I didn't make it to the end of the post given how awkward the shouty WOMEN, NON TRANSWOMEN part was, but I'm glad you aware of the existence of the term even if you only sparingly use it.

Sure. While I think most trans issues can just be discussed directly, it can sometimes be useful to connect people to similar experiences they have already worked through. So for example I might speak about how similar accepting trans people is to accept gay people, even if we don't feel those ways ourselves. I don't think it is useful to go on about how you would be willing to call people a horse or other on-their-face outrageous things. Basically, make comparisons that lift trans people up not take them down.

Ok, but you understand the argument I'm making. How could I have worded it to be more uplifting in your eyes? Wouldn't have been able to make that point by replacing horse with gays.

Clearly you don't read many of my posts all the way through, I've used cis more than sparingly.

While I prefer cis women to biological women, that is orders of magnitude better than your term of biowomen. I feel only mildly about the former.

Using "cis" and not "biowomen" is hardly close to any forefront of "political (sic) correct speech". This is long standing basic terminology. I don't recall even where I learned it this was so long ago, but I'd be quite surprised if I learned it at anything specific to the university, nor have I ever felt one iota of pressure to use any specific type of speech at universities. Your model of how academia works is quite wrong.