Why was the term "cisgendered" even made in the first place? (guns, history)

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

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?

I gave you a perfectly good usage of the term assign. You refuse to deal with it.

I know exactly what a strawman is thanks!

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

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

Says the person who just said he did not care regarding defining the difference between certain phenomenon, when asked, despite there being one term used.

Is your game up yet! You can't even follow your own reasoning in this thread.

[JerseyGirl415]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Not with someone like you!


It's you right to believe that!


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?


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.

Who or what is "someone like me"?

I quickly went back through the posts and you have conflated sex and gender here (this thread) at times. Sometimes you say gender (psychological feel) is assigned at birth, sometimes you say sex is assigned at birth. Sex is determined before birth and observed at or before birth, but it is my view that gender roles can be assigned at birth through observing sex. "She's a girl so we'll dress her in pink! We'll buy her dolls!" etc. Gender roles are a social construct so it makes sense that they can be "assigned," sex is not. A trans person has a case when they say their "gender" was assigned at birth, as in they were expected to be "girly" because they are a girl. But that is not the same as sex, which is again why it is confusing to conflate the two. They are a biological female whether they are girly or not, whether they are dysphoric/are trans or not, so claiming they were "assigned female at birth" is just an odd co-opt of language that intersex individuals may use in a way that makes actual sense. It shows how people are confusing the language which in turn often winds up confusing the general public. I believe this confusing of the language is on purpose.

I entirely disagree with the notion that humans can assign a sex, for reasons I have said and also Aussiehof (among others on this thread, there have been a few more) has done a great job explaining his (?) view on it as well and I agree with most of it if not all of it from what I can tell. I don't really care if you want to "mock" me about any of this (seems childish, but whatever). You keep saying that I am not following the conversation or reading it but I am following and reading just fine. I even just went back for a quick peruse through the relevant parts of the thread. We just disagree. I can understand that, you have to attack over it...

Case in point:

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

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.

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

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!

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.

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

Yes, in your efforts to support the use of the word assign for sex determination in human beings, you quoted a study on sexing fish that discusses the use of 4 alternate methods to reduce error rates. If you can't see why this doesn't support your argument....I don't know what to tell you.

Your post on page 11, when I asserted the use of the word assign is for a specific and well understood purpose (one that you now acknowledge it being due to social justice activism), you responded with "Yeah, it's a conspiracy of definitions and bad language use." with a facepalm. A clear mocking of my point.

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

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.

You are enjoyable..... and consistent. I note from another current thread that the name calling, abuse and incorrect claims of strawman arguments are your MO.

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

I did read and we do not agree. Sex is not "assigned" at birth for the vast majority of people (excluding the rare intersex where there is ambiguity; but even in that case I do not believe it is "assigned" unless/until someone explicitly decides to, well, pick a sex). It is observed.

And yet you wrote this earlier:

It’s nothing new; “assigning gender at birth” is exactly what you describe. Aka, determining what sex the baby is...

Here you make sex and gender synonyms and say that assigning a sex is exactly what they do.

Originally Posted by Aussiehoff

You are enjoyable..... and consistent. I note from another current thread that the name calling, abuse and incorrect claims of strawman arguments are your MO.

If you strawman I note it! Thanks!

[Aussiehoff]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Says the person who just said he did not care regarding defining the difference between certain phenomenon, when asked, despite there being one term used.

Is your game up yet! You can't even follow your own reasoning in this thread.

haha, I'm sure inside your head you are making a lot of sense. Its just us stupid people who don't recognise your acumen. Am I right?

[JerseyGirl415]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

And yet you wrote this earlier:


Here you make sex and gender synonyms and say that assigning a sex is exactly what they do.

I was quoting someone else. Hence why it is in quotes...

Whether I agree with the conflation or not, fact is that people will use sex and gender interchangeably for this purpose; either way it means the same thing - observing a baby's sex.

I also very clearly in the quote you provided do not say that "assigning" a sex is what anyone does... I say "determine what sex the baby is."

Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415

Who or what is "someone like me"?

I quickly went back through the posts and you have conflated sex and gender here (this thread) at times. Sometimes you say gender (psychological feel) is assigned at birth, sometimes you say sex is assigned at birth. Sex is determined before birth and observed at or before birth, but it is my view that gender roles can be assigned at birth through observing sex. "She's a girl so we'll dress her in pink! We'll buy her dolls!" etc. Gender roles are a social construct so it makes sense that they can be "assigned," sex is not. A trans person has a case when they say their "gender" was assigned at birth, as in they were expected to be "girly" because they are a girl. But that is not the same as sex, which is again why it is confusing to conflate the two. They are a biological female whether they are girly or not, whether they are dysphoric/are trans or not, so claiming they were "assigned female at birth" is just an odd co-opt of language that intersex individuals may use in a way that makes actual sense. It shows how people are confusing the language which in turn often winds up confusing the general public. I believe this confusing of the language is on purpose.

I entirely disagree with the notion that humans can assign a sex, for reasons I have said and also Aussiehof (among others on this thread, there have been a few more) has done a great job explaining his (?) view on it as well and I agree with most of it if not all of it from what I can tell. I don't really care if you want to "mock" me about any of this (seems childish, but whatever). You keep saying that I am not following the conversation or reading it but I am following and reading just fine. I even just went back for a quick peruse through the relevant parts of the thread. We just disagree. I can understand that, you have to attack over it...

My first points were simply about what took/takes place as a matter of fact - people assign sex/gender throughout history. I even linked info on it. Then the argument was made that you can't assign sex because that is not how the word should be used. I showed otherwise! I also went through how the word cisgender came about as a result of some ambiguity with these conflations. IT does not mean that I agree with the ambiguity but that I understand the need for coining new words and even modifying them as people grow in understanding. Don't simplify all my posts into one act of conflation.