He's literally combining gender and sex. Man and woman are sex labels. They're also gender labels, because gender=sex.
That doesn't address the point I was interested in. If a pub declared itself to be a smokers' pub in big letters and an unmissable graphic to avoid language differences above the door, we can assume that those deciding to enter have done their personal risk assessment and decided to go in (with reasonable access to a smoke-free pub nearby). Similarly, if a woman wants to mingle with other women and with men who identify as women, and has suitable notice that that's what the social space is, we can assume that she has reason enough to want to do that (again, assuming this is the minority or at least that there are plenty of sex-segregated establishments). I was, however, thinking more about gyms and clubs rather than public toilets, and while these will probably have toilets, that's not their main function. Even if we simply consider toilets, if there are enough female-only toilets to cater for women, and men's toilets for the men, we might also concede that another gender neutral toilet alongside doesn't necessarily pose a risk to women or men.
What, they can't even change it?
That would give a field day to any therapist or counsellor as the whole concept is that you can change your gender.
This is why you are the thread's most annoying poster. You dont even read your own citations. From your link:
That's what I said, scooter.
After all this time, you genuinely still can't wrap your head around the fact that 'transwoman' does not mean literary turned into a female, can you?
And if a road has a posted sign saying no speed limit, then we can assume that those deciding to drive on it have done their personal risk assessment.
I don't think anyone objects to the voluntary provision of third "gender neutral" spaces. I certainly don't. But that doesn't satisfy the TRAs.
That's not quite the concept. The concept is that you can realize what your true gender actually is. In practice, that's the same thing as changing your gender, but the trans ideology conceptualization is that nothing changed, you only realized what it was all along. That includes being "gender fluid", where the switching itself IS your true gender.
Indeed. But they aren't usually being told that explicitly. Rather, they're being given positive feedback for having switched in the first place, and constantly encouraged to continue with that identity. They may even be discouraged from switching back, under the assumption that any desire to revert is driven by external pressure that they must resist. So they don't have to be told outright not to revert, the positive/negative feedback they get can apply incredible pressure even with no explicit demands. And yeah, it's ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up.
Some trans people claim it does.
Really confused, I think. After all, p0lka seems to be saying this critically:
when his usual beef is with people combining sex and gender, since he'd like them to be kept separate.
I did not say that, even accounting for paraphrasing. I said,
Your sex is not a role. The important distinction here isn't between gender and sex, but between something that's a role (ie, socially constructed) and something that's not a role (ie, biological reality). My statement would have worked just as well had I said "sex role" instead of "gender role". But it would make no sense if I had said "sex role" instead of "sex", as you falsely claimed. I'm going to assume that this was not a deliberate lie, but the fact that you could substitute "sex role" for "sex" in what I said betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of this entire issue and the arguments at play here.
Oh that's not good. Society pressure once again.....◊◊◊◊.
People are separating sex and gender without realizing, whilst they're arguing the opposite, I'm just pointing it out.
Yes, I was thinking earlier about race tracks, as a matter of fact.
OK, I understand and think I might have an idea what you mean.
Oh, ok, I thought you'd made that objection, in response to Damion. Maybe I'm wrong. I thought you'd objected to, say, a gym separating folk by their gender identity - although that's not exactly the same as gender neutral, which doesn't separate at all and just means 'sex neutral'.
Sometimes people here are equating the words 'gender' and 'sex' (as they once generally meant exactly the same thing), and sometimes they're talking about 'gender' more along the lines you are, as a role or set of expectations of one's sex. I think you're just not always aware what they're saying.
And they aren't in this thread. It gets a bit trying to keep discussing this with voices in your heads and spooky invisible TRAs with MKULTRA powers.
Indeed. So why do you keep comparing my use to saying things which are only offensive when you're 'rubbing it in someone's face'? No one's face is being rubbed with this.
If you're hearing voices, then those voices aren't in my head.
You're being beyond petty now. When you duck the point of the discussion to complain and harp about precision in irrelevant terms is beneath you, man.
The term transwoman is free of any perticular ideology. Its a simple short label used so we can talk about the subject. To advocate a longer clunkier term (like transgender identified female for transman) that doesn't even substantialy clarify anything is also petty. Every poster that entered this thread since I began engaging has said "the what's this now?" when first confronted with it.
I've got The Pass, because I am a vocal anti-basher. Sin is in the intent.
My spouse cobbled together a hook to lower the seat belt. It makes it more comfortable, but it's not like we've tested it in an actual crash, so who knows if it would do any good there.
I've considered a step for dishes, I just don't want to have to drag it out and put it away constantly. Mostly I try to just rinse and put in the dishwasher right away, or make my spouse deal with larger dishes that need hand-washing.
Any. Reader. In. This. Website. can see the bashing. You use their lingo, you wear their colors. Ever hear thd one about how many nazis are sitting at a table when there's four of them, and you join them?
Not you so much as others, but every time you argue with my POV by justifying it based on some spooky invisible TRAs POV, you are working hard to give the impression that you certainly are hearing someone/thing else.
Do you not think there's a bit of a problem with a group of people demanding that everyone else has to use language that affirms their false belief in order to avoid causing offense? If people with transgender identities cannot hear reference to their objective and real sex without having distress, that speaks to a severe mental health disorder - one that needs treatment not coddling. Otherwise, you're essentially requiring that everyone play along with their desire and ignore reality to bolster their feelings. You're requiring that nobody can say that the emperor is naked.