It ain't straw pal... it correctly and accurately summarises your exact schtick in this thread. You have been all over the place, taking grossly incoherent and contradictory positions for the entire time you have been posting here.
It doesn't have to be a game. I don't want it to be a game. I think the debate about trans rights in public policy should be taken seriously.
Cool. That seems to be where a lot of people start, on both sides of the debate.
When necessary, or practical. Occasionally, out of courtesy.
I have said multiple times that I don't give a fat rats ass what TRAs want.
That's irrelevant. In the real world, we still have to contend with them and their influence. And what they want is self ID as I described.
Great. You contend with them then, and adjust all your thinking to their terms. Or, since they are not actually here and participating in a skeptical discussion about the subject, you can contend with your imaginary representation of them. Not my bag.
Your bag appears to be to play weird semantic games of your own devising. Meanwhile everyone else here knows exactly what I mean when I say "self ID".
Funny how you so eagerly defer to TRA terminology, but only when quite convenient. Do you extend your passion for adopting TRA lingo when asked what a woman is?
Just realized I never replied to Emily's Cats post, I think my reply would be the same as to this one.
Oh that is interesting, have you still got the link?
In todays society, 'woman' can describe more than just an adult human female, therefore it's a variable.
You brought it up?
What new word? If you mean woman, that's not a new word. That's an old word. Others have said no to reinforcing sexual roles and have decided that we don't need a new word at all. We can keep the original meanings of the words "female" and "woman." We also don't need a new word for acting feminine, or for stereotypically female gender roles.
Hernandez, L.M., Lawrence, K.E., Padgaonkar, N.T. et al. Imaging-genetics of sex differences in ASD: distinct effects of OXTR variants on brain connectivity. Transl Psychiatry 10, 82 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-020-0750-9
Yes, I know what it was in reply to. It's interesting because in this thread and in the real world, some people think that if a biological male states that he feels like a woman, it gives that person the right to override sex segregation and to even mandate what words people use. You telling Emily's Cat to grow up in response to her analogy is especially interesting since you're also here insisting that the word woman must be used a certain way and are telling everyone who doesn't use it that way that they're wrong.
No. My position is that gender labels have caused a lot of problems.
Not when were talking about the sex of individuals!
Stop feigning ignorance! You know perfectly well that I was referring to YOUR comment - a comment YOU made!
"Gender" is not a new word. Its been around at least since the 17th century. Gender has always been another way to say sex until quite recently when it was hijacked to mean something else. When separated from biological sex, gender become meaningless.
There is no other terminology to refer to their preferred policy. I’m using the terminology everyone is familiar with and everyone but you understands, because that’s how communication works.
No, because there’s already a better alternative, the traditional definition. These aren’t equivalent situations.
QFT
And you continue to ignore that i have no interest in discussing their preferred policy.
I understand that you want to adopt their lingo when convenient for you, and deny it on the same grounds. I just don't find that constructive.
"Better". It's like you're not hearing yourself. Whether or not it is "better" is the heart of the debate. You keep trying to worm that in as a given. It's not. Its exactly what the entire debate is about.