No. when i referred to it, it was as Trolly said. I was trying to make a distinction between the considerations of a trans woman in sport and considering the questions that arise around gender and any arguments for or against sport participation, and the biological female aspects that would put the cis women at a disadvantage to a trans woman.

So as I do, as I call you Lucky and myself QP, i just shortened the words biological woman, when referencing that aspect, to bio woman.

Since that point uke and ganstaman, desperate for a first perceived win, have tried to maintain that is some form of gotcha. That it is WRONG to not have just spelled it out in full.

There is certainly nothing wrong in discussing the biological aspects and considerations of women versus the gender aspects and considerations of trans women, when it comes to sport. But apparently using a short form is a line too far.

I still do not understand any distinction you are trying to make in suggesting it is wrong??

It's (exactly) as wrong as drawing a cartoon of Mohammed is wrong. But you probably missed my last post while writing yours.

So are you in agreement with uke that cis males need to identify with 'cis', even if they have no bad thoughts about trans people but just reject this entire 'identity' stuff and that they need to accept 'cis' as their identification?

As uke would tell you it 'kind of feels slurry' if you refuse such basic identities.

And again the biological woman comment had context when it came it up as we were specifically talking about trans women in sport and I was making points about the biological woman differences and considerations as compared to the trans woman, gender considerations.

I just shortened biological women to bio women for expediciancy and DO NOT see how that is in any way a slur against trans people???

Biogender, as defined in the link you provided, is not a contraction (any more than biosphere is a contraction for biological sphere). If someone uses that term biogender, then as I said I would accept their identity but as it's not really a gender I would reject their terminology.

You using the word biowoman as a contraction is therefore different. Is this now clear?

No. No one should be forced to have any labels imposed on them by society.

Nope. Not helpful.

I understand why the Mohammed cartoon offends some, even if I disagree with the Muslims on the issue.

I do not understand why in a discussion about sport, and trans gender consideration issues versus biological considerations issues referencing the biological women, in that sense as a bio women, would be offensive to a trans person?

Are you going down the line, of some stuff I have posted from the more extreme trans advocacy side that suggests biology does not exist and is a social construct and thus to assert there is even a biological female or male is an insult to trans persons?

I know, that line is being pushed in some trans advocacy corners.

I've explained it you're just not reading my posts.

It's a slur because trans people are sacred and you can't just make up your own terms, even if it's just a shortened form, because you're not treating them with the proper amount of reverence.

It may or may not be offensive to a trans person-- that's going to depend on whether or not they're drinking their own kool-aid.

No definitely not. Try this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prof...fane_dichotomy

Profanum is the Latin word for "profane". The state of being profane, or "profanity," refers to a lack of respect for things that are held to be sacred, which implies anything inspiring or deserving of reverence, as well as behaviour showing similar disrespect or causing religious offense.[1]

The distinction between the sacred and the profane was considered by Émile Durkheim to be central to the social reality of human religion.[2]

When you use the term bio-woman you are not giving them the proper amount of reverence as you cannot just make up your own terms. Terms must be approved by authoritative sources.

Like try to imagine living in a highly religious society where you went around calling god the "G-man".

The reaction wouldn't be dissimilar to what you're seeing here.

You're acting like you're just free to change the language however you see fit, and with ordinary language you can. But we aren't dealing with ordinary language we're dealing with religious language.

It's for the same reasons that publications started capitalizing black as in "Black Americans" but not for white Americans. Marginalized groups are to be held as sacred and deserving of capitalization.

And it's why there are specific rules and procedures for how you're supposed to treat an American flag (idk about Canadian flags).

As always, if you're going to post this kind of patent bad-faith trolling, you can't expect to be taken seriously when you pretend you're just innocently asking stupid questions.

WHO just changed Monkeypox to Mpox. Seems relevant to this somehow

How am I wrong here?

Why do you think Cuepee using a shortened form of biological would cause the sort of reaction that he's received?

Does not matter.

You obsess over the meaningless stuff, to avoid addressing the point as you KNOW you are wrong.

Regardless of everything you say me shortening a sentence to call my self QP instead of writing out Cuepee, or Lucky, or writing Bio woman in place of biological woman, in text conversation on a chat forum is NOT wrong as you guys have been pushing for months, if not a year.

This is the Carlin meme. You are so convinced by your own opinion that I should not use a contraction you cannot concede it is ONLY your opinion and thus not wrong for to hold an opinion that a contraction is fine.


All we can do is 'agree to disagree', which is uke's bane when he is wrong and stakes out wrong ground zand you so eager to circle jerk with him followed him down this stupid road.

You can hold whatever OPINION you want about the use of contractions, in text talk, but no one else has to agree with you (oh it hurts that, that is true, doesn't it) and they can feel it is perfectly appropriate.

Do you not understand that? Are you as obtuse as uke on matters of opinion, like this, not being fact and thus not 'wrong'?

And yet you are using similar type coercive language to suggest a person is doing something 'wrong' if they view the situation different than you do, and choose to not identify as CIS or choose to shorten the word biological women to bio woman.

And you are not reading my posts as biological woman, IS NOT, NOT... directed at the trans person in the equation and is, IS, directed at the cis person.

So again, how is that then offensive to the trans person unless you are arguing any time a cis person does not identify in the way a trans person wants them to, that is an affront to the trans people.

BTW that is what uke seemed to have argued over this point.

this is just factually wrong.

In some instance new language evolves from 'authoritative sources' such as the Psychiatric Society, defining a new term. But far more often language evolves from the ground up, via common usage. Slurs, slangs and common speak, that due to continued usage and acceptance become accepted in to common standard language.

That's not what I've said at all. I've said you're acting irreverently but irreverence is something that I'm a fan of.

SIDES!!


uke made a stupid mistake in calling that out as a mistake i made and telling me I was wrong, when it is not.

Trolly, ganstaman. et al, then have to race in to the circle jerk to prop him up and save him from his stupidity by saying he is right so he can cling to the 'numbers' as proof he must be right.

Jesus the fact that language evolves doesn’t give you carte blanche to make up whatever words you like without others pointing out your unorthodox language makes you look profoundly ignorant at best.

Notice how you failed to find any established source in two years using your made up term? Sorry buddy, you aren’t evolving anything.

It's interesting because Trolly is being willfully obtuse in failing to understand me but you're just not.

I'm ready to give up though.

It would only make him look ignorant it he was using it while thinking that it was already an established term, which I don't think is the case here.

You complain and insult and write so much that I think you forget to stop and actually read. I don't recall in any of these recent posts me saying that your use of biowoman was wrong. What I've said was that the existence of some source defining the term biogender doesn't say anything about the appropriateness of your use of biowoman as they are not really related terms.

Anyway, if you want to pretend to still not understand what I'm saying then have fun, I guess?

My understanding is when he first said it he had absolutely no idea it was an extremely unorthodox expression that stood out like a sore thumb to anyone familiar with the space. It's been a couple years since then...