• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

What is Gender

That doesn't change the fact that trans women, who claim biological sex is meaningless, make themselves feel more like women specifically by wearing clothes designed around biological sex of women. It's almost like they know deep down that biological sex and gender are inescapable.

Please explain how that changes anything in what I wrote and ESPECIALLY tell me how that matters? People dress in a manner that makes them feel a certain way all the time, men and women. Ever hear of a man's power suit?

And if someone 'wants' to be identified by the gender they feel, why wouldnt they express it, even if only to prevent the mistaken pronouns being discussed?
 
Please explain how that changes anything in what I wrote and ESPECIALLY tell me how that matters? People dress in a manner that makes them feel a certain way all the time, men and women. Ever hear of a man's power suit?

And if someone 'wants' to be identified by the gender they feel, why wouldnt they express it, even if only to prevent the mistaken pronouns being discussed?

I can only repeat what I've already said. Feeling aside (sorry), but gender and biological sex are the same thing. Trans people can pretend that biological sex doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter to them yet they'll wear clothing designed to function for the woman's body in order to feel more like a woman. That means they basically succumb to the idea that biological sex is indeed real.

You can wear whatever clothing you want but to do so while claiming biological sex doesn't matter is reason enough why nobody would take you seriously. It's essentially like homosexual couples who express that they're attracted to the same sex yet design their relationship around one of them acting and taking on the role of the opposite sex.
 
It simply means that their gender, their inner self, is male. For some that means having a penis. For others it can be as simple as that is what they are. And how being male is expressed can be different from person to person.

I am male, both in sex and gender. Personally I can't stand sports. To some that makes me less male or not male. Now I do like certain competitions, particularly competitive obstacle courses, such as Beast Master. I am rather emotive, not at all ashamed to let tears flow when particularly sad, or even happy. Again, there are those who would lessen or negate my being male for that. And quite frankly I enjoy wearing kilts. And when you boil it all down, a kilt is nothing more than what a man calls a skirt.

Despite my not meeting the standards others hold as being male, I know I am male. And quite honestly, what's between my legs is not the deciding factor. And trans people know what they are. Sometimes they don't have a word that matches common lexicon enough. For what I am, male is accurate enough. And some don't need their body to fully match their gender. Some trans can solve their GD simply by presenting as their gender. What this means is what they see as that gender. Just because you feel females should wear skirts and dresses, does not mean that a female, cis or trans, feels they need to in order to be female.

And that might be part of the problem. Gender and gender presentation are two separate things. I present male differently than some other males. For the most part, I present enough things that others associate with male, for them to see me as such, but others do not see me as such because of what I mentioned above.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
This is all in your head and your letting trivial societal interaction of people youll meet only once at a bar judge you. Not enjoying watching sweaty men fight over a ball as people zealously pick and chose a side does not make you "more or less male". You are mixing the dominance hierarchy with gender and being EFFEMINATE which is a bad word in itself as it always circles around back to sex.
 
I can only repeat what I've already said. Feeling aside (sorry), but gender and biological sex are the same thing. Trans people can pretend that biological sex doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter to them yet they'll wear clothing designed to function for the woman's body in order to feel more like a woman. That means they basically succumb to the idea that biological sex is indeed real.

You can wear whatever clothing you want but to do so while claiming biological sex doesn't matter is reason enough why nobody would take you seriously. It's essentially like homosexual couples who express that they're attracted to the same sex yet design their relationship around one of them acting and taking on the role of the opposite sex.

Its all just trickery to sneak into automatic acceptation instead of earning it. And they dont even realize it.
 
I can only repeat what I've already said. Feeling aside (sorry), but gender and biological sex are the same thing. Trans people can pretend that biological sex doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter to them yet they'll wear clothing designed to function for the woman's body in order to feel more like a woman. That means they basically succumb to the idea that biological sex is indeed real.

You can wear whatever clothing you want but to do so while claiming biological sex doesn't matter is reason enough why nobody would take you seriously. It's essentially like homosexual couples who express that they're attracted to the same sex yet design their relationship around one of them acting and taking on the role of the opposite sex.

So you didnt tell me why it matters. Which was what I asked.
 
Round and round we go.

I am having trouble getting any sort of answers
about what a person means when they claim they are trans gender.

So am I. Can you please address post 174? It is your OP.
 
P

I think it’s apples and oranges to compare being uncomfortable with a different race in your bathroom, with being uncomfortable with (trans girls) with erect penises in the girls bathroom or locker room with your daughter. Which is where this ideology is heading logically. It can’t be avoided.
 
P

I think it’s apples and oranges to compare being uncomfortable with a different race in your bathroom, with being uncomfortable with (trans girls) with erect penises in the girls bathroom or locker room with your daughter. Which is where this ideology is heading logically. It can’t be avoided.

People at the time did not. As I wrote...you did read that, correct? They believed, ignorantly, that there were diseases and bugs that could be transmitted back and forth.

So it's not apples and oranges. Can you explain why visuals in a restroom are that different?
 
People at the time did not. As I wrote...you did read that, correct? They believed, ignorantly, that there were diseases and bugs that could be transmitted back and forth.

So it's not apples and oranges. Can you explain why visuals in a restroom are that different?

Well, the first vase would be ignorance. The second would not be, it’s just uncomfortable about changes tomsexual norms.

And I think the deasease concern was likely much less of s thing than simply feeling superior to blacks.

Most people who oppose changing norms are not agaisnt or feel superior to trans. It’s rather about the logical implications of changing soicietal norms. Allowing boys in the girls room necesssrily means allowing boys who pretend to feel like girls to go in there, riht along with those boys who really do feel like girls. That is simply a given. So it erases long held barriers to early sexual interaction. Whether you consider that a good thing or bad, it’s not sbout looking down on trans at all, at least for most people.

And the reality is, trans have never been stopped from using the bathroom of their choice, as long as they made even Weak attempts to play the gender role. It was a non issue for the most part.
 
Well, the first vase would be ignorance. The second would not be, it’s just uncomfortable about changes tomsexual norms.

And I think the deasease concern was likely much less of s thing than simply feeling superior to blacks.

Most people who oppose changing norms are not agaisnt or feel superior to trans. It’s rather about the logical implications of changing soicietal norms. Allowing boys in the girls room necesssrily means allowing boys who pretend to feel like girls to go in there, riht along with those boys who really do feel like girls. That is simply a given. So it erases long held barriers to early sexual interaction. Whether you consider that a good thing or bad, it’s not sbout looking down on trans at all, at least for most people.

And the reality is, trans have never been stopped from using the bathroom of their choice, as long as they made even Weak attempts to play the gender role. It was a non issue for the most part.

Er? How is the 2nd case not 'ignorance? There are cultural norms certainly but if they are based in ignorance, are they something to continue to propagate?
 
Er? How is the 2nd case not 'ignorance? There are cultural norms certainly but if they are based in ignorance, are they something to continue to propagate?

What ignorance? Explain
 
Believing it's ok to restrict other people because they make you feel uncomfortable, would be one example from your post.

So, if you enjoying a day at the park with your young child, and A man is there masterbating openly, you just have to take it? Becasue we csnt dare restrict him simply because your comfort level has gone down?
 
So, if you enjoying a day at the park with your young child, and A man is there masterbating openly, you just have to take it? Becasue we csnt dare restrict him simply because your comfort level has gone down?

How is that applicable to our discussion? Where in public, even in restrooms, are people of any gender or trans allowed to masterbate? It's a public health hazard.
 
It’s applicable because your premise was that being uncomfortable was not a basis to restrict people.
Yet clearly you and everyone else is willing to restrict people on that basis when you feel like it.


How is that applicable to our discussion? Where in public, even in restrooms, are people of any gender or trans allowed to masterbate? It's a public health hazard.
 
It’s applicable because your premise was that being uncomfortable was not a basis to restrict people.
Yet clearly you and everyone else is willing to restrict people on that basis when you feel like it.
So you are somehow equate health hazards with simple uncomfortableness?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
It’s applicable because your premise was that being uncomfortable was not a basis to restrict people.
Yet clearly you and everyone else is willing to restrict people on that basis when you feel like it.

Examples please?
 
Examples please?

I just gave you one a couple posts ago.


Another one would be lots of people,want open carry banned b3cause it makes them Uncomfortable.

Many lefties now are pushing hate speech restrictions because other ideas make them Uncomfortable.

Most everyone supports men not being allowed in girls Locker rooms.
 
I just gave you one a couple posts ago.


Another one would be lots of people,want open carry banned b3cause it makes them Uncomfortable.

Many lefties now are pushing hate speech restrictions because other ideas make them Uncomfortable.

Most everyone supports men not being allowed in girls Locker rooms.

You call them examples? :lamo
 
Not at all.

You brought up the public masterbation as why would it be banned if it is only done so based on uncomfortableness. Lursa points out that such would be banned not on uncomfortableness, but on health hazzard reasons. You then respond with:

It’s applicable because your premise was that being uncomfortable was not a basis to restrict people.
Yet clearly you and everyone else is willing to restrict people on that basis when you feel like it.

Somehow are we NOT to conclude that you see health hazzards as the same as simple uncomfortableness? Maybe you need better examples to show this supposed hypocrisy of banning one uncomfortableness, while not doing so to another.


Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
We're supposed to be a free country... shouldn't people be free to live the lifestyle they choose?

The way I figure it, if someone has a problem with how anyone else lives their life... well, that's their problem.
 
You brought up the public masterbation as why would it be banned if it is only done so based on uncomfortableness. Lursa points out that such would be banned not on uncomfortableness, but on health hazzard reasons. You then respond with:



Somehow are we NOT to conclude that you see health hazzards as the same as simple uncomfortableness? Maybe you need better examples to show this supposed hypocrisy of banning one uncomfortableness, while not doing so to another.


Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
I disagree with the premise, most would object and agree to bans on PM based upon it being “indecent” not on health issues.

And there are no public health issues with refused to PM anyway. That is a canard, unless there is also Ejaculation. And it’s no different that sneezing. We are expected to secure our bodily fluids.
 
I just gave you one a couple posts ago.

If you are talking the masterbation example, we've already proven that such a ban would not be on a basis of uncomfortableness, but on the basis of health hazzard.

Another one would be lots of people,want open carry banned b3cause it makes them Uncomfortable.

Credit where due. You've brought up two examples of things people want banned from opposite "sides of the aisle". That said, based upon the 2nd such a ban should not be. Carried concealed is a separate issue. I will also note that private property rights are still in play, so a private business could ban weapons from their property, and also certain government facilities, where safety is more of a factor such as bases and courts.

Many lefties now are pushing hate speech restrictions because other ideas make them Uncomfortable.

And most have been losing on the legal aspect of the 1st. The laws that are about the call for violence are legit enough, and, again, private property rights, a given location can limit, well not exactly what is said on their property, but then ban people from their property who do not stay within their rules.

Most everyone supports men not being allowed in girls Locker rooms.

Actually until recently there have not been any laws of note on locker or bathroom use. A facility, say a gym or a pool, could decide to have a single unisex changing room and it would be legal. Please don't bother to make a comment on how no one would use it. That has nothing to do with legality and yes there are people who would. Enough in that area to keep the business running? Depends upon the area.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
We're supposed to be a free country... shouldn't people be free to live the lifestyle they choose?

The way I figure it, if someone has a problem with how anyone else lives their life... well, that's their problem.


Are you against public materbation? In front of little kids?

Are you against open carry firearms?
 
Back
Top Bottom