Rolfe
Adult human female
There's a double echo Rolfe... take a look at my new signature!!
I see it now. Sigs don't show on a phone in portrait orientation.
There's a double echo Rolfe... take a look at my new signature!!
Absolutely. "I hates dem pervy tranny freaks" is a particularly sublime bit of argumentation.
It's not clear that the term "biological woman" even makes sense, but if it does, trans women are definitely biological women. The brain is the piece of our biology which makes us special.
The birth certificate is not even part of our biology at all.
They need to cope harder!!I'm not subscribed to the thread in which the trans folk on the other forum I belong to complain to each other about how they're being persecuted (mostly because I think they deserve their safe space) but I just clicked on the last page to see how they're taking the Darlington verdict and noticed this gem, which I'm quoting for p0lka's edification:
No, the UK is equating them (man=male, woman=female). That's not the same as 'mixing them up'. Men and women sharing the women's toilet is 'mixing them up.'re highlighted: No it doesn't, it's still mixing them up.
But 'transmale' obviously invites confusion with 'transman', for anyone who doesn't keep referring to your particular glossary.point one. I use the term transmale in this thread to be clear to what I'm referring to, as people in this thread get confused with the woman part.
You just said 'I use the term transmale in this thread to be clear what I'm referring to.' Claiming points 1 and 2 at the same time, interesting.point two, I was referring to the judgement and how they were defining terms.
I did that.It seems your confusion is coming from you, maybe read peoples entire post before replying?
You commented on the case and even claimed you were using the court's language (which you use generally in this thread anyway, you also claim), and you don't know what the man did? (Sorry for the confusion: that's "woman" or "transman" to you.)What did they do?
As women will tell you, the word was already taken. That is the bigger picture.Do what I'm saying and none of that would happen? It seems you're wrapped up in the supposed fight about who claims 'woman' rather than seeing the bigger picture.
A wise decision, showing that you understand when you will be out of your depth!!
QED.Absolutely. "I hates dem pervy tranny freaks" is a particularly sublime bit of argumentation.
Point one was referring to the red part of my post in which I used the words I have taken to use in this thread to lessen confusion, but I can use transwoman instead if you want? If i'm actually causing more confusion by using transmale i'll switch. I thought I was being clearer by using transmale, as that refers to the sex of the transperson and not the gender vagueness.But 'transmale' obviously invites confusion with 'transman', for anyone who doesn't keep referring to your particular glossary.
You just said 'I use the term transmale in this thread to be clear what I'm referring to.' Claiming points 1 and 2 at the same time, interesting.
I did that.
Point two was referring to the underlined part of my post in which I used the words of the judgement, not my own.This judgement was against the bosses and their failure to act, the transmale was found to have done nothing wrong.
I do think it's good that they are calling them female changing rooms in the judgement, and that rose is a biological male transwoman. Yay progress of sorts.
See my previous post for the explanation of point one and two.You commented on the case and even claimed you were using the court's language (which you use generally in this thread anyway, you also claim), and you don't know what the man did? (Sorry for the confusion: that's "woman" or "transman" to you.)
You must know what he did (or "they" if you prefer). I'm asking you if you condone it.
If the person had said that they didn't want any males in the room instead of men, do you think it might have been harder for the bosses to argue about it? I think it might have, but I don't know so what do other people think?
Thanks. So some of them are cherrypicking bits of science that they want to believe whilst ignoring the rest. That way nonsense lies.I'm not subscribed to the thread in which the trans folk on the other forum I belong to complain to each other about how they're being persecuted (mostly because I think they deserve their safe space) but I just clicked on the last page to see how they're taking the Darlington verdict and noticed this gem, which I'm quoting for p0lka's edification:
That's a weird complaint, 'they' can be used in the singular too."They"? There was one person, not multiple people.
You claim that the solution to these issues is clarity of language, and yet you participate in its obfuscation and corruption.
No, it's mixing up gender and sex together as being the same thing; which is not going to solve the problem, instead of treating them differently as they are.No, the UK is equating them (man=male, woman=female). That's not the same as 'mixing them up'. Men and women sharing the women's toilet is 'mixing them up.'
That is precisely the problem with "trans identifying male". For decades, the 'trans' part meant 'transitioning' towards the identified gender, and a transgender identified woman is still used in the literature to describe MtF transpeople. Using 'transgender identified male' sounds like someone who is transitioning/transitioned to male, which is the opposite of your intent. As you say, ya really can't run around with personal glossaries to interpret what individuals mean when using terms in their opposite sense.But 'transmale' obviously invites confusion with 'transman', for anyone who doesn't keep referring to your particular glossary.
That's a weird complaint, 'they' can be used in the singular too.
Example: the driver turned left then they proceeded north.