I'm sure there could be some occasions where you need to specifically talk about cis women and not females who don't identity as women, but those are going to be pretty rare.

Like this tampon discussion for example. Tampons are for females not just cis women.

And this highlights another reason why "biological women" is problematic, since you're now excluding females who don't identify as women. What if there is one who is catgender but still wants to play on the table tennis team? You have to let her play.

This is, of course, quite correct. Only those swimming in the foul waters of Camp Run-A-Woke would be confused by something so obvious and simple.

Fixed My Post.

(My normally excellent comedic ear failed me the first time.)

Tee-Hee!

Sort of. You are right that in the vast majority of cases the distinction of the adjectives 'trans' and 'cis' isn't needed. That is, just call women women. Trans women are women. Cis women are women. This thread is ostensibly going to focus on those cases where we are making the distinctions. However, as tempting as it might be use 'female' to refer to explicitly biological or perhaps genetic traits, our society interchanges women/female and men/male so often, that a trans man, for instance, might not call themselves female. The term identified by GLADD is "assigned female at birth" to be extremely explicit that this is not their current identity.

Yeah, this. Cisgender does have a rare but important linguistic function, that being it distinguishes an individual whose gender identity matches their sex. However, unless you are specifically addressing this topic, then female is more appropriate as you can almost always be more certain about someone's sex than their gender.

The second point about tampons is also an important one. Female is the most appropriate term when you need to understand someone's biological functioning, for example providing healthcare. Gender is of little use in these circumstances.

How dare you?!

Tell me woke is a religion without telling me woke is a religion.

TG-- accused of astroturfing now just regular terfing.

there is no delay. That is another lie by you.

We discussed at length myself and others not being as UP on language as people like you and ganstaman to what is appropriate language. I made several points asking 'how long someone should get to know the NEW terms' as you and Trolly were always mocking those who did not know and were up to speed. I kept pointing out to you it was wrong to mock as if everyone has a clock to find out new terms and you would then call it 'tone policing' and say we should not 'tone police' you. Something I find ironic as you tone police others just recently.

But this is what you do. You lose on the fundamental and real argument and try to claim a lie as a win.


No, the issue you and Trolly engaged me on was me creating the contraction. You laughed at the use of that and gave examples (as you always do) to say we do not do that with other terms.

That is a matter of preference and opinion and then, like now, I disagree with your view so there is 'no progress' gained as I still disagree and have every right to. You are not right because you hold a differing view, something you will NEVER be able to understand or accept.

If you just use female, a trans female will say that includes her too, which it does. In fact a big part of the movement is a push to stop identifying with 'trans' first, and to just say 'male' or 'female' or 'woman' or 'man', so that trans individuals do not feel like hyphenated- participants.

So again, when it comes to talk to advantages and differences in Sport, you cannot address that topic just by saying 'females' or 'women' without identifying the bio-differences at play that are the defining factors.

it is necessary to speak directly to the bio-differences or you end up in a false argument where some claim there are no real meaningful differences significant enough that should prevent trans women who have a bio-advantage from competing with cis-women.

Again GLADD is just a garbage reference source that is extreme in its politics. The PETA of the segment.

GLADD is trying to flip the script and distort reality to try and make it as if everyone is making a Trans person like decision, so that trans people do not see themselves as the only group making such decisions. So the baby born, via adults who have the power to make such a decision are simply 'assigning them as female or male at birth'. It is just a temporary marker until the person later chooses their gender because you see we are all fluid or have to choose at some point.


it is garbage logic and biologically inaccurate. Outside a minuscule few exceptions a person is either male or female at birth, full stop. That is the basic factual biology that Prof in the video I provided earlier got attacked for and that radical students and the Profs who support them are trying to distort.

We should be able to support trans people without the need to distort facts and biology simply to make them 'feel better' and for 'inclusivity', and this type of push by the uke Prof types is exactly what will cause more push back and more laws being pushed by the right to address these levels of science and fact denial.

I have said prior, that uke will always support the worst of the far left, as it 'outs more bad people' for him to virtue signal against and he cares far more for that and the fight then he does to actually get to real solutions to help trans people live better lives. I mean that entirely sincerely. He would always pick the path of most resistance as it then creates more polarity and more 'bad people' and he feels he looks better as a result.

it is not just woke, it is stupid.


uke literally does not know how language evolves and i have been educating on that for ages now.

I am factually right in what i say on this topic.

Language evolves by people simply making up terms or slang, it being used and tested in common speech and it either gets discarded or not used enough, or it gets used and repeated enough that it becomes defined in language as a new word.

Everything uke says suggests he has no clue that most of our language has evolved on that path, unless you subscribe to a god like being who just handed us a complete set of language.

If you look at various Patois types evolution in language or ghetto talk English words melded with their prior languages to form new words that eventually became part of the actual speech. That does not mean every word every said. But it is NOT wrong as uke would say, to use a word casually that may not ever make it to the point of accepted speech. that would be Results based Thinking fallacy as it would mean it is ok to use a word if it eventually gets accepted but wrong to have used it, if it never gets accepted.

Another of my teachings here as few seem to not be able to keep tripping over the Results based Thinking fallacy. Something I point out as ironic since this is a poker forum first.

The point that Sugar and I are making is that if it weren't specifically this topic (or some similar issue) Uke/Trolly would not care if you used language capriciously.

Uke does understand that language changes-- but when it comes to this specific issue you must use language that is authorized and cannot make a deviation even as minor as shortening biological to bio.

While we're on the topic of language. Can the woke in here please teach me why it's OK to shorten transgender in transwoman but not OK to shorten biological in biowoman?

I want to become a bit less of a transphobe*

If there's some sort of rule I can follow to deduct when it's OK to shorten a word and when not, I'll spare myself contracting AIDS by periodically checking the politburo woke twitter for the correct nomenclature du jour.

The point I was making is the repeated use of the term "unorthodox" carries clear religious connotations.

You don't say "transwoman" as one word, you have to use "trans woman", with trans as an adjective there. So the example doesn't quite work.

So bio woman is OK then?

Yeah I caught that and agree. Words must be authorized by the priesthood which is Uke's definition of an "authoritative source".

Nope not ok, because whenever bio is used it is always used as a prefix and never a standalone word.

Searching the Corpus of Contemporary American English I do see plenty of hits for "bio", but many of those are short for "biography" so it is not the same "bio".*

Bio prof is sort of interesting and I do bet that is used. I mean I use soc, psych, anthro in speech....probably not ling or phil but maybe in writing. Never took biology at University level so perhaps someone else has insight there.

" Found bio fuels used but it's from a blog

We're on what, year three of trying to teach these morons the word "cisgender?"

What about it do you think is not understood? Enlighten us please o wise and knowledgeable Trolly.

Moronology is back on the syllabus this semester? Is this an advanced level course where you and Washoe are the only two participants?

https://youtu.be/ufl-TIp4KuQ

I thought this was an interesting talk. Singal is a notorious transphobe who wants to sleep with trans women but I'm not familiar with Ferguson.

Nothing about trans people in the talk but it's relevant for some of the recent woke religion and language discussion.

Maybe you could teach a bit harder. With a bit more force, like.

Maybe camps in which you could teach "the way" could be a good idea?

Pretty sure this is the first time you've acknowledged you didn't realize "cis" was the standard term as I correctly guessed at the time. Of course you can quote yourself if you've ever acknowledged it before.

And that's ok. It is ok you were profoundly ignorant of the most basic terminology to do with trans issues. But it is important life skill to own up to it when we are ignorant. And I give you credit here! You both changed your behaviour and have now - finally - admitted it. My only suggestion next time is to try to make this happen in less than 2 years.