• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anyone notice how stable the Biden cabinet has been?

I see. So is a 'handicap' an advantage or a disadvantage?
Now you are calling alternate choices a handicap. How does that make sense?

When you are in a hole, stop diffing.
 
Now you are calling alternate choices a handicap. How does that make sense?

When you are in a hole, stop diffing.
I am showing you that there can be more than one definition of a word, and that when one definition contradicts another definition, it doesn't mean that one of the definitions is wrong. Therefore, even though one definition of 'woman' is an adult human female, a 'woman' can also be an adult human male. Like this one:

 
I am showing you that there can be more than one definition of a word, and that when one definition contradicts another definition, it doesn't mean that one of the definitions is wrong. Therefore, even though one definition of 'woman' is an adult human female, a 'woman' can also be an adult human male. Like this one:


That point did not come across. Just sayin'.

You are making a distinction that makes no difference. The controlling definition is the legal one, which goes with biology.

You are arguing that the law is out of date. Since any exception that is to be made must be written in the statute, I suggest you focus your attention on modifying the law. The rest of your point is sophistry without content.
 
That point did not come across. Just sayin'.

You are making a distinction that makes no difference. The controlling definition is the legal one, which goes with biology.

You are arguing that the law is out of date. Since any exception that is to be made must be written in the statute, I suggest you focus your attention on modifying the law. The rest of your point is sophistry without content.
I disagree. Males are using women's locker rooms and toilets as we speak and are not being arrested for it. The reason why is because locker rooms and restrooms are not separated by sex, they are separated by gender, and while most girls and most women are female, not all girls and not all women are female. A tiny minority of them are male. Because they are still women, they are allowed to use the women's facilities and play in women's sports. At least in non-red states.
 
I disagree. Males are using women's locker rooms and toilets as we speak and are not being arrested for it. The reason why is because locker rooms and restrooms are not separated by sex, they are separated by gender, and while most girls and most women are female, not all girls and not all women are female. A tiny minority of them are male. Because they are still women, they are allowed to use the women's facilities and play in women's sports. At least in non-red states.
Again with the improper use of gender. Your attempt to redefine the term is annoying and not helpful.

Men are not using women's toilets and lockers if they are unisex. They are using unisex toilets and lockers.

All girls and all women are female. It's provable by a blood test.

If you want to change the law, then change the law. Stop trying to evade it.
 
Again with the improper use of gender. Your attempt to redefine the term is annoying and not helpful.

Men are not using women's toilets and lockers if they are unisex. They are using unisex toilets and lockers.

All girls and all women are female. It's provable by a blood test.

If you want to change the law, then change the law. Stop trying to evade it.
That is not an improper use of gender, it's just a use of gender that refutes your argument and you therefore don't like it. You are trying to use only one accepted definition of a word to contradict another accepted definition. That isn't how definitions work. Words can have more than one definition. Your approval of contrary definitions is not required. Gender can be defined as grammatical gender. It can also be defined as the range of characteristics that define femininity and masculinity. Your argument only holds water if you ignore other accepted definitions that contradict your own, which is a circular argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom