What's the Difference if any between Man and Woman?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Most transgenders are gay men and the video you posted in the other thread included a lot of gay men, and I think you will find it difficult to find any reasonable "wokie" that advocates predatory males taking advantage of a situation of poor gay men that just want to be women. No "wokie" I've spoken to thinks it's okay for predatory males to pose and women to get into women's bathrooms and sports. And trans are included in the lesbian/gay group, not in the criminal group. It's gays that are expecting you to give up your rights to free speech, not predatory males. The latter aren't concerned with pronouns. They are concerned with invading women's safe spaces. So I would think it obvious that this IS about gay vs. straight but you are just needing to jump on the bandwagon to bash Wiz.

It doesn't matter if 'most are gay men' if that's even true. That's not what this is about. It's about keeping men out of women-only spaces. How hard is that for people to understand? If men are being legally allowed to call themselves women, no questions asked (as it is here), then that leaves the door open for ANY man to gain access to ANYTHING that is women-only. If women aren't even ALLOWED to call men men, then where the fuck does that leave women?

You don't see how the infringement on free speech is the basis for the problem you are talking about? In canceling your right to use whatever pronoun you wish, they are effectively canceling your ability to question anyone's claim they are a woman or a man. If you want to solve the problem of predatory men in women's bathrooms you have to solve the problem of pronouns first.

I've made the same point repeatedly i.e. the assault on our ability to effectively use language. With it being written into law that these men are LITERALLY women then that takes away the ability of women to fight it. It's creating a convoluted mess in every part of society-- with women being the losers in every one of them.

[Age]

If 'you', adult human beings, did NOT have NOR do 'these things' upon "others", especially children, then there would NOT be following generations growing up to SCARED and AFRAID to be Truly OPEN and Honest. There, literally, would be NO need AT ALL for what is called 'privacy'.

It's interesting that children do not seem to fear being watched. Like when they are having their dirty bums wiped or when they are shitting or peeing in front of their parents. Or having chocolate and icecream smeared all around their face, they have no idea what a mess they look. Children do not seem to have inhibitions.

Children do not seem to fear not being loved or liked by their parents, their parents are the ones that usually adore them no matter what they do, it's like an unconditional love. It seems children just lap up all the attention that comes their way given usually by their parents.

So what happens, to those fearless children as they turn into self-conscious privacy loving adults? where has the fearless child gone?

.

'Those children', just like the Truly 'very intelligent and curious children', still exist and dwell IN 'you', adult human beings. 'They' are just very, very deep WITHIN. Mostly COVERED UP or HIDDEN by those False and Wrong ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which adult human beings HAVE, and HOLD

[Wizard22]

AND, JUST AS True IS, "the other" is NOT necessarily so what you 'want them to be'. you can 'want them to be' stupid, and ugly, and short, and poor. But you wanting does NOT make it so, at least immediately. That is; if you kept calling 'a child' stupid, and ugly, and short, and poor, THEN 'that child' WILL START BELIEVING 'they' ARE. Which, OBVIOUSLY, WOULD BE, EXACTLY, what 'you' 'WANTED 'them' TO BE'.

Sometimes kids are stupid though, Age.

The point is to be accurate when it comes to those who are actually smart, or stupid, and not misappropriating the label, just because somebody hates another. But this is the common use. If people disagree with you, think you wrong, then the Ad Hom fallacy is to call you 'stupid', when that is not yet proven.

You're not saying anything new here, Age.

[Wizard22]

You are such a moron. This isn't about 'gay' or 'straight' but it's a fact that many of these predatory 'fauxwomen' are straight men who claim to be lesbians-- It's a particularly common fantasy among porn-soaked straight males (gee, I wonder why...) There was a case recently in Australian where a 'lesbianman' sued a lesbian dating site for excluding him. Another case in the US where a 'lesbianman' sued (AND WON against)a women's spa, because he felt 'humilaited' at not being allowed to romp naked with 'other women'. There are also new cases coming up all the time of 'malelesbians' raping women in women's prisons. I'm not interested in your relgioturd hatred for gay men. This is about safety and protecting women and children from MEN who wish them harm.

Trajik Logik is correct; you are wrong.

You need to separate your gay apples, the "ordinary" gay from the "unordinary" ones. That's your position, own it.

[Wizard22]

Because without a separate category of women's sports, even though women make up 51% of the population, they would make up only about 11% of winners in sports, thereby moving us backwards in the representation of women in sports.

I think these wokies want to speak their opinions, but doubt themselves, because they know by speaking and reacting, they give away their hypocrisies and contradictions readily.

They intuitively know they cannot rationally defend their nonsense.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You are such a moron. This isn't about 'gay' or 'straight' but it's a fact that many of these predatory 'fauxwomen' are straight men who claim to be lesbians-- It's a particularly common fantasy among porn-soaked straight males (gee, I wonder why...) There was a case recently in Australian where a 'lesbianman' sued a lesbian dating site for excluding him. Another case in the US where a 'lesbianman' sued (AND WON against)a women's spa, because he felt 'humilaited' at not being allowed to romp naked with 'other women'. There are also new cases coming up all the time of 'malelesbians' raping women in women's prisons. I'm not interested in your relgioturd hatred for gay men. This is about safety and protecting women and children from MEN who wish them harm.

Trajik Logik is correct; you are wrong.

You need to separate your gay apples, the "ordinary" gay from the "unordinary" ones. That's your position, own it.

Yes. You are a moron. That post was to you. I've never used the words 'ordinary gays' anywhere. Anyway, the general consensus on here seems to be that you are a disingenuous idiot who makes wildly inaccurate assumptions about pretty much everyone on here. Do you read ANYTHING apart from the first couple of sentences, if that?

[Wizard22]

I've never used the words 'ordinary gays' anywhere.

Now you're lying vege...disappointing. I expect better of you.

Nothing to do with ordinary gay people any more than saying all heterosexuals are fetishists. I'm sure gays can get by without your approval

"ordinary gay"

[Wizard22]

It is now pretty obvious that I have a far superior memory than others on this forum.

I guess that marks philosophy hobbyists apart from the "real deal". Vege can't even remember what she said a couple days ago...!

[Age]

AND, JUST AS True IS, "the other" is NOT necessarily so what you 'want them to be'. you can 'want them to be' stupid, and ugly, and short, and poor. But you wanting does NOT make it so, at least immediately. That is; if you kept calling 'a child' stupid, and ugly, and short, and poor, THEN 'that child' WILL START BELIEVING 'they' ARE. Which, OBVIOUSLY, WOULD BE, EXACTLY, what 'you' 'WANTED 'them' TO BE'.

Sometimes kids are stupid though, Age.

Will you provide ACTUAL examples, AND, what your DEFINITION for the 'stupid' word here?

Or, do you just prefer to MAKE this CLAIM, and then just LEAVE 'it'.

Also, IF a child is so-called 'stupid', then does this MEAN that a, supposed, adult has to then CALL them 'STUPID'?

The point is to be accurate when it comes to those who are actually smart, or stupid, and not misappropriating the label, just because somebody hates another.

Considering the Fact that you have been MISAPPROPRIATING LABELS here, in this forum, and thus being Inaccurate, SAYING what you have just done here now seems rather HYPOCRITICAL.

But this is the common use.

Does COPYING and DOING what is so-called 'common' make what is being COPIED and/or DONE, right or good?

If people disagree with you, think you wrong, then the Ad Hom fallacy is to call you 'stupid', when that is not yet proven.

You're not saying anything new here, Age.

Okay. I NEVER thought I was.

Did you think I was?

[Age]

It is now pretty obvious that I have a far superior memory than others on this forum.

'you' REALLY DO LOVE BELIEVING that 'you' are NOT just superior than "others" but are ACTUALLY FAR SUPERIOR than "others", right "wizard22"?

I guess that marks philosophy hobbyists apart from the "real deal". Vege can't even remember what she said a couple days ago...!

you remarking on 'this' seems REALLY REMARKABLE considering what is taking place in another thread here in this forum.

[Wizard22]

Will you provide ACTUAL examples, AND, what your DEFINITION for the 'stupid' word here?

Or, do you just prefer to MAKE this CLAIM, and then just LEAVE 'it'.

Also, IF a child is so-called 'stupid', then does this MEAN that a, supposed, adult has to then CALL them 'STUPID'?

Sometimes, yes, it's important to know if you're being stupid.

Look at what Vege just said. She blatantly contradicted herself. That makes her look stupid. You're over-thinking things and bringing in your own childhood trauma, as you are prone to do.

[Harbal]

Sometimes kids are stupid though, Age.

But they don't usually grow up to make a whole way of life out of it, like you did.

[Wizard22]

But they don't usually grow up to make a whole way of life out of it, like you did.

[Harbal]

It is now pretty obvious that I have a far superior memory than others on this forum.

I guess that marks philosophy hobbyists apart from the "real deal".

Yet the consensus here seems to be that you are an idiot.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I've never used the words 'ordinary gays' anywhere.

Now you're lying vege...disappointing. I expect better of you.

Nothing to do with ordinary gay people any more than saying all heterosexuals are fetishists. I'm sure gays can get by without your approval

"ordinary gay"

I said ordinary gay people, not 'ordinary gays'