Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

In rare candor, you do freely acknowledge that you don't want sex segregation, you openly want sex discrimination. Bully for you.

I had stuff typed up responding to other parts of your post, but none of it really matters next to this bit.

What do you think sex segregation even is? It's a form of discrimination. It's not some separate thing. God damn, but this is an elementary mistake. I cannot believe you're making it this late in the game. You are not even equipped to even discuss the subject with anyone if you can't grasp such fundamental concepts.

 

[Thermal]

I had stuff typed up responding to other parts of your post, but none of it really matters next to this bit.

What do you think sex segregation even is? It's a form of discrimination. It's not some separate thing. God damn, but this is an elementary mistake. I cannot believe you're making it this late in the game. You are not even equipped to even discuss the subject with anyone if you can't grasp such fundamental concepts.

The primary definition of discrimination, and the sense it's used in this discussion, is "the unjust and prejudicial treatment of different categories of people". That's what the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ word is understood to mean, especially in a discussion where sex discrimination laws are frequently discussed.

If you want to use a secondary definition to play word games and try to conflate meanings, knock yourself out. I'm done.

 

[Ziggurat]

The primary definition of discrimination, and the sense it's used in this discussion, is "the unjust and prejudicial treatment of different categories of people". That's what the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ word is understood to mean, especially in a discussion where sex discrimination laws are frequently discussed.

If you want to use a secondary definition to play word games and try to conflate meanings, knock yourself out. I'm done.

Of course you're done. You always flounce away when you don't get your way. You cannot tell me what I mean by the words I use. Discrimination simply means to make distinctions and treat differently based on those distinctions. The fact that you can't understand how this could happen in any way other than a negative one is your shortcoming, not mine. Certain forms of discrimination we consider to be bad, but other forms of discrimination we don't. And that "we" includes you. You discriminate too. And well you should. Only an idiot would never discriminate.

Now, try re-reading what I wrote without trying to impose YOUR meaning of the word on me. See if you can figure out how that might make a difference. Can you do that? No, probably not.

 

[theprestige]

Depending on how you define things, none. I want them.to have equal rights and accommodations.

And we both know what you are going to do: interpret them as all men, and say all men get the same rights and accommodations. That would be stunningly evasive and disingenuous. Let's just say we've already done that and save the bandwidth.

Nobody has the right to override sex segregation just because they say they want to. That's the only "equal rights" issue I'm aware of, currently under discussion. Did you have a different one in mind?

 

[Thermal]

Nobody has the right to override sex segregation just because they say they want to.

Agreed. Glad we got that cleared up. Also, kudos for ressurecting 'override sex segregation', which we really dont have anyway. Perinneals and all that.

That's the only "equal rights" issue I'm aware of, currently under discussion. Did you have a different one in mind?

Just the ones being discussed for several years in this thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

Agreed.

But you don't agree. You just got done telling me that you don't agree. "They [trans identifying males] should be able to go to the places that align with their gender, just like everybody else." That's overriding sex segregation.

You have zero consistency.

 

[Thermal]

You cannot tell me what I mean by the words I use.

Ya, I got u Humpty.

Now, try re-reading what I wrote without trying to impose YOUR meaning of the word on me.

It's not 'my' meaning, as I explained to you already. its both the primary and instant contextual meaning.

I get that this is your idea of Holiday cheer. Again, knock yourself out. My meaning for that is of course Merry Christmas to you and yours.

 

[Thermal]

But you don't agree. You just got done telling me that you don't agree. "They [trans identifying males] should be able to go to the places that align with their gender, just like everybody else." That's overriding sex segregation.

You have zero consistency.

What a great example of having your head up your ass! Thanks for that.

Theprestige said for people to override sex segregation because they say they want to. I agree that that is undesirable. You, on the other hand, are wrestling with 5th grade reading comprehension. And by that I mean I wish you a safe and happy new year.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not 'my' meaning, as I explained to you already. its both the primary and instant contextual meaning.

It's absolutely not the primary meaning. The primary meaning is

1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.

And the contextual meaning (same source) is

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.​

You stuck a moral judgment in there which doesn't need to be there, which shouldn't be there. Because you are in favor of discrimination. Not any and all discrimination (nobody is), but of some forms of it. THAT is the definition which is relevant to this discussion. Not your 'only bad discrimination counts as discrimination' farce. You can't say that I'm in favor of discrimination and you aren't because you think my forms of discrimination are bad and your forms are good. It's all discrimination. Some of it may be bad, some of it may be good, but it's not bad because it's discrimination, and it's not discrimination because it's bad. That's not how it works. It's incredibly shallow thinking to believe that it is.

But that's what we've all come to expect from you.

 

[Thermal]

It's absolutely not the primary meaning.

It absolutely is. My previous definition was the primary and first from Oxford. Merriam-Webster gives its primary definition as ": the act, practice, or an instance of unfairly treating..." Note the bolded. By which I mean 'suck it, Humpty'.

Et: but you already knew that didn't you? You already scoured through different definitions, seeing they all had mine as the primary till you hit on lame-ass dictionary dot com, which nobody uses.

But that's what we've all come to expect from you.

In this thread, which is That Thread.

 

[d4m10n]

you really need to document the broken jaw thingy if you are going to keep spreading such a tale.

Fair enough, we've no way to know definitively whether Grant Kyle Freeman physically attacked his wife prior to taking her forename for herself. It appears the case never fully adjudicated, possibly because the key witness was uncooperative.

Black's insta or something was pulled while they documented their transition, including the start of their hormone therapy in February.

Therapy for what diagnosis? Perhaps a physical problem requiring estrogen, such as ovarian dysfunction?

 

[Ziggurat]

Fair enough, we've no way to know definitively whether Grant Kyle Freeman physically attacked his wife prior to taking her forename for herself.

No, we know that for certain. There are public records of that, I dug them up and linked them earlier. I couldn't find reports on what her injuries were, so Thermal can still claim that maybe he didn't break her jaw, but Grant absolutely physically attacked his wife.

 

[d4m10n]

They were married, and apparently once he threw a punch that broke her jaw.

That seems excessive; do you think maybe she misgendered him?

 

[Ziggurat]

It absolutely is. My previous definition was the primary and first from Oxford.

And? Again, you are trying to tell me what I mean by the words I use. That is stupid. I told you the definition I'm using. I don't care that Oxford has gone woke. It doesn't even matter if your definition is the most common one. It's not the definition I'm using. And the definition I'm using isn't something I just made up. It's a pretty standard definition. But you cannot accept my own word for what I meant. That's the height of arrogance.

In this thread, which is That Thread.

You're blaming this thread for your own faults.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh for crying out loud.

Trans stalker tells judge 'I'm a female' in women's prison switch demand

Vivienne Taylor, 28, is currently in custody awaiting sentence for the pursuit of Tina Rashid

www.standard.co.uk

 

[Thermal]

No, we know that for certain. There are public records of that, I dug them up and linked them earlier.

You reposted what I already posted. And evidently, you didnt undrrstand it. The only thing tbat is known for certain is that police were called by the wife for a reported injurous assault, yet when police got there, they didn't arrest him for it. It either didnt hapen at all, or was so geossly exaggerated as to be not credible.

That's what we know for certain.

I couldn't find reports on what her injuries were, so Thermal can still claim that maybe he didn't break her jaw, but Grant absolutely physically attacked his wife.

Now you're either lying or being inexplicably stupid. The only evidence of any assault at all was a lone claim that police didn't act on and the caller didn't pursue.

I've been charged with simple and aggravated assault by 3 different people. There are publicly accessible arrest records. Did I 'absolutely physically attack' my accusers? There's actually evidence that the charges was made, unlike Freeman. Or are you bright enough to figure out that an empty claim is not proof of a goddamen thing?

 

[Ziggurat]

You reposted what I already posted. And evidently, you didnt undrrstand it. The only thing tbat is known for certain is that police were called by the wife for a reported injurous assault, yet when police got there, they didn't arrest him for it. It either didnt hapen at all, or was so geossly exaggerated as to be not credible.

I don’t know where you’re getting that from, since we have an arrest record from Jan 3, 2020, and a court record showing charges were filed, and that court record shows he was on probation for it until October of that year, which indicates a conviction.

I've been charged with simple and aggravated assault by 3 different people. There are publicly accessible arrest records. Did I 'absolutely physically attack' my accusers?

I have no idea, but it does sound like you made some bad life choices, and I would never take advice from you.

There's actually evidence that the charges was made, unlike Freeman. Or are you bright enough to figure out that an empty claim is not proof of a goddamen thing?

You never actually looked up the info I posted about his 2020 case, did you?

 

[Thermal]

I don’t know where you’re getting that from, since we have an arrest record from Jan 3, 2020, and a court record showing charges were filed, and that court record shows he was on probation for it until October of that year, which indicates a conviction.

Christ do we really have to repeat all this again?

He was apparently found guilty of obstriction, which is what he was charged with at the time (he wouldn't open the door and police had to force entry). He had a seperate conviction and sentence for failure to comply, related to drug charges. Ohio has no public records of anything further on the matter.

I have no idea,

Gee, we absolutely know Grant attacked his wife, based on no arrest and the demonstrably false story madeup by the conservative tabloid, but you just have no idea here, huh? Hm.

but it does sound like you made some bad life choices, and I would never take advice from you.

Your innocence about how and why people would bring false/exaggerated charges against others is charming.

You never actually looked up the info I posted about his 2020 case, did you?

I posted it before you discovered it, so no, I didn't need the refresher.

 

[Thermal]

Fair enough, we've no way to know definitively whether Grant Kyle Freeman physically attacked his wife

We also don't definitively know Grant Kyle Freeman didn't mastermind 9/11, so let's keep mentioning it, just in case.

What we do actually know definitively is that the reporting was entirely imaginary.

prior to taking her forename for herself.

I feel bad for her, what with having no name anymore and all. Must be awkward when meeting someone.

It appears the case never fully adjudicated, possibly because the key witness was uncooperative.

And possibly because it was bull ◊◊◊◊, which we definitively know that it was. We really don't need to go for a ride on the Imagination Train.

Therapy for what diagnosis? Perhaps a physical problem requiring estrogen, such as ovarian dysfunction?

When I say hormone therapy, I mean social.media posting, neither more nor less. Get with the Humpty program. Zig will show you the way.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gee, we absolutely know Grant attacked his wife, based on no arrest and the demonstrably false story madeup by the conservative tabloid, but you just have no idea here, huh?

I have no idea whether YOU assaulted anyone. You haven't actually told me whether or not you did.