Why was the term "cisgendered" even made in the first place? (conspiracy, abuse)

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

What is pathetic is the insistence on using terms like "assigned female at birth" to describe a biological woman (or more simply, a woman), but you keep on being woke.

This is all new woke, progressive language, and though I am quite socially progressive, I won't take crap this far. I don't fall for much trans rights activism crap these days, it has gone too far. I used to, but I woke up (no pun intended, ha).

The context of the so called "afab" in woke culture these days means that a person's gender was "assumed" (aka sex was observed), but it was assumed incorrectly because the person has gender dysphoria and is actually trans - "feels like" the other sex or gender if you must. And that is something that could not possibly be known at birth, and the person's biological sex was properly observed no matter how they "feel" on the inside years later.

Thanks for that barf fest! I take it you just could not challenge the post regarding the term assign and its perfectly appropriate usage and barfed up arguments that were not even being made or argued against.

[JerseyGirl415]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Thanks for that barf fest! I take it you just could not challenge the post regarding the term assign and its perfectly appropriate usage and barfed up arguments that were not even being made.

Do you know how to debate without being snarky or borderline insulting? Responding like you have cheapens your arguments because it looks like you are the one who cannot properly have a conversation about this topic. You are getting defensive rather than staying level-headed, it's obvious in your posts. I have discussed this at length now, there is not much else to say. My position is clear. That you don't like it doesn't mean I have not addressed your view or can't address it or that I am wrong.

The word "assign" has connotations that a person has control over what is being allocated or labeled or named or given. I "assign" this project to you. No one assigns a sex. Sex is determined outside of anyone's control sometime after conception (I don't know the exact moment in utero when sex is determined but it doesn't matter for the purposes here). Sex is part of our DNA. It is observed, out of anyone's control. Someone could "assign" a clearly male baby as a female - "for all intents and purposes, you are a female, I say so" - but it would be wrong.

I love how these people quibble over words as if they are prescriptive, unalterable, and lacking range that they get mad when you use one (assign) 'inappropriately' like it's a violation of some heavenly law. Then they get just as upset when you create new words (cisgender) to describe some new understanding or phenomenon. What is really going is that they want to control language and will complain either way not because there is any weight to their stupidity but because they don't like the social implications and the changing norms in society - they would rather be stuck in mire of ignorance of backwater thinking that gave rise to many words in place.

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Are you still having trouble following along.

The article was not about the ambiguity of external sexual dimorphism nor how recent a word a phrase is - IT WAS ABOUT THE USAGE OF THE WORD ASSIGN AND BEING A COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE USE OF LANGUAGE Einstein in this context.

And by the way "assigned at birth" is not a term it's a phrase Forest!

And where did I mention that this phrase is not a part of social engineering? Is this some other divergence and straw man you wish to employ?

What is embarrassing, FOR YOU, is you complete lack of integrity and ability to actually stick to the points.

Oh I'm following just fine. You spent a lot of time trying to support your position in relation to humans by finding an obscure article about sexing (not gendering) fish.

At least we are getting somewhere and you are now acknowledging the purpose behind the recent introduction of the term (yes it is a term, and also a phrase. But given it is a group of words commonly used to designate something in a particular field, "term" is the more appropriate word to use).

It wasn't long ago in this thread that your purported there was no ulterior motive to its use, and it was just being anal to discuss it.

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Yet you are on here quibbling about the term 'assign' And if you can't or refuse to answer then stay out the conversation because you can't or won't add anything substantive to understanding this phenomenon.

No crap that's what I said

Except you would not and don't care, as stated, about their gender identity just their sex identity. Sounds like disrespecting to me. And, again, where was arguing that you were doing otherwise.

Again, why are you saying this when I did not say anything about what Gender Dysphoria does to a person's sex.

You love straw men and rabbit trails. Add to that irrelevant comments that act like you are saying something important in refuting my points - NOT!

I care about the correct use of language and identifying reasons for concerted attempts the change definitions.

On that theme, it is clear you don't understand what a strawman argument is. Would you like me to explain?

[JerseyGirl415]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I love how these people quibble over words as if they are prescriptive, unalterable, and lacking range that they get mad when you use one (assign) 'inappropriately' like it's a violation of some heavenly law. Then they get just as upset when you create new words (cisgender) to describe some new understanding or phenomenon. What is really going is that they control language and will complain either way not because there is any weight to their stupidity but because they don't like the social implications and the changes norms in society - they would rather be struck in mire of ignorance of backwater thinking that gave rise to many words in place.

Why do you assume anyone is "ignorant" or has "backwater thinking"? This also isn't a good look - calling people names when they are actually debating you and engaging with you well.

Another aspect of woke culture these days is to just name call the other side as a way to shut them and their opinions down. I used to be all for trans rights, 100%. All for the new progressive word use and all that. "Trans women are women!" - I believed it. But I saw things differently after some firsthand experiences that I don't need to go into and started to change my mind, and then research into the topic led me to the gender critical way of thinking.

I think gender dysphoria is real, I think people may "feel" and express themselves how they want, but I don't believe that they are the other sex or ever can be, and I don't believe that they should start having access to sex-segregated spaces reserved for the opposite sex. Sex distinctions are real and important, and no matter what, no one can become the opposite sex. I think we get into dangerous territory when we start allowing biological men into women's prisons and into women's sports or start calling women "uterus havers" because we are afraid to say women, or saying "people with a cervix, get checked for cancer" because we are afraid to say women, or saying "pregnant people" even though women are the only ones who can become pregnant (these are real, look it up). If you disagree that is fine, but I am far from ignorant. I simply disagree with you.

So yeah. Twisting the language has been a real thing, excuse me for thinking it's absurd.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

Do you know how to debate without being snarky or borderline insulting?

Not with someone like you!

Responding like you have cheapens your arguments because it looks like you are the one who cannot properly have a conversation about this topic. You are getting defensive rather than staying level-headed, it's obvious in your posts. I have discussed this at length now, there is not much else to say. My position is clear. That you don't like it doesn't mean I have not addressed your view or can't address it or that I am wrong.

It's you right to believe that!

The word "assign" has connotations that a person has control over what is being allocated or labeled or named or given.

See this is what I'm talking about - did I deny that SPECIFIC CONNOTATION to the word. NO! Is that the ONLY connotation? NO! I gave you the definition that I'm using to describe the point. Why are you refusing to allow it or deal with it and instead bark and barf up this point?

I "assign" this project to you. No one assigns a sex. Sex is determined outside of anyone's control sometime after conception (I don't know the exact moment in utero when sex is determined but it doesn't matter for the purposes here). Sex is part of our DNA. It is observed, out of anyone's control. Someone could "assign" a clearly male baby as a female - "for all intents and purposes, you are a female, I say so" - but it would be wrong.

As such this usage is not relevant to my points. Again, no one is saying that Dr. just arbitrarily say so - where did that come from. I have told you a dozen times now that it is based on genital expression. Now you are acting as if I'm suggesting they can just arbitrarily assign a male as female. This is exactly why I mock you - because you are intellectually dishonest incapable of actually following the points.

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I love how these people quibble over words as if they are prescriptive, unalterable, and lacking range that they get mad when you use one (assign) 'inappropriately' like it's a violation of some heavenly law. Then they get just as upset when you create new words (cisgender) to describe some new understanding or phenomenon. What is really going is that they control language and will complain either way not because there is any weight to their stupidity but because they don't like the social implications and the changes norms in society - they would rather be struck in mire of ignorance of backwater thinking that gave rise to many words in place.

With respect, it appears the only person getting mad (and abusive) in this discussion is you. Clearly this is a subject close to your heart and it seems to be clouding your ability to discuss it sensibly.

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

Oh I'm following just fine. You spent a lot of time trying to support your position in relation to humans by finding an obscure article about sexing (not gendering) fish.

Wrong again! It was to support the idea that the word assign can be used in such a way. I told you that already and you still can understand it can you!

At least we are getting somewhere and you are now acknowledging the purpose behind the recent introduction of the term (yes it is a term, and also a phrase. But given it is a group of words commonly used to designate something in a particular field, "term" is the more appropriate word to use).

Whatever! I did not acknowledge the purpose that you gave it but its use. You are acting as if I was denying something and NOW acknowledging something, please show where this happened in regard to your purpose.

It wasn't long ago in this thread that your purported there was no ulterior motive to its use, and it was just being anal to discuss it.

I don't think so! Please cite the post/s. Of course it is possible someone could do so - so what!

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

With respect, it appears the only person getting mad (and abusive) in this discussion is you. Clearly this is a subject close to your heart and it seems to be clouding your ability to discuss it sensibly.

Not really, but dealing with people that are unable to stick to the subject and points being argued while completely being unable to comprehend them is deserving of ridicule.