Berkeley Prof tangles with Sen Hawley, calls him trans phobic

I love how you guys are all asking the same (already answered) question. Is there talking points memo?

 

It's an effort to exclude them when your reaction to inclusive language is to demand people use exclusive language. Come on lol. This professor's sin in the eyes of Hawley and the people you referenced is using language that INCLUDED them.

No, we're told that transgender women should be allowed to play women's sports under the appropriate circumstances. I'm not sure how that "kill[s ] equality for women."

 

And how do you define "man" and "woman?" Are they completely subjective, or do you believe they have some level of objective standards?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

That is a blatant misrepresentation od what I said.

 

How so?

 

Except for all the laws "conservatives" are passing (and EOs they're enacting) to block them from doing what they want to do lol. Don't even get me started on the irony of "conservatives think[ing] it's wrong . . . to treat delusion as reality." Cough 2020 election cough.

Yes, if you insist on misgendering transgender people, you are a bigot and a transphobe. We agree.

I'll bear that cross.

 

How do you define biologically male/female?

 

It's better than the alternative. Earnest question: Why call them what they wish to their face?

 

Your turn, see post 103.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I've kind of given up on it. The science isn't clear that there is a functional definition of man and woman. There are people with penises and ovaries, are they men or women? There are people with XX chromosomes and testes, are they men or women?

 

What makes you think any language is "objective"? Language is simply a sign that stands in for a concept that is understood among a group of people, understandings which are subject to context.

 

Because I literally said i identify them the same "behind their back" regardless of what I consider true.

You just dont like the fact that you lose your "ass holelery" accusation.

People like me drive people like you nuts and I love it.

You cant paint me into one of your predetermined corners and so you keep painting until the corner is so small. You find yourself alone in it and you then realize I'm not even in the room.

Newsflash. Everyone deserves equal respect and everyone deserves equal love.
Chirst gave his life for all of us equally and no sin or wrong is bigger than another. Mine are just as big and wrong as anyone elses.

I can CONSIDER something to be true. Voice it on a message board, and yet somehow manage to go out in the real world and be a decent human being.

Save your lame attempts for someone else.

 

A hypothetical person needs to be catered to? I addressed the use of terms in hypothetical situations vs real life ones above as well.

If I offended the hypothetical person hypothetically mentioned than i apologize.

 

The problem is the definitions are shared, at least partly. "Man" and "woman" have never been 1:1 synonyms with biological sex. There's always been a social component to it. That' why saying a cismale is "not a real man" is hurtful, and why calling him a "true man" is a compliment.

It's not just about the junk he's packing, but the myriad expectations, behaviors, roles, and attributes associated with the ideas of manhood.

For that reason, I doubt many trans men would be upset if you said they were born biological females. But when you tell him he is a woman / not a real man, it becomes an insult because you're disassociating him with not just the biological aspect of manhood, but all of the sociological aspects as well. Just like you would be if you said the same thing to a cismale.

 

Because I'm not an A hole contrary to your accusation?

 

Not true. You are literally on a message identifying them behind their back as a gender they don't want to be identified as.

 

What adults who are willing to pay for their treatment are being blocked from getting treatment?

Also, with respect to the 2020 election, that is textbook whataboutism on your part. You know I don’t support the notion that the 2020 election was stolen, I know you don’t. Yet you're using that delusion to justify yours.

 

You may say or do as you wish. I haven't directed you in any way, but would note that the hypocrisy is being missed by you, despite it being right under your nose.

 

a rose by any other name
a rose by any other name (would smell as sweet)

What someone or something is called does not change their innate characteristics or attributes. The shorter version of the phrase is often used when describing undesirable people or things. The full line is from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet bemoans the fact that Romeo, whom she loves, is a Montague, her family's rivals.

You can dress up his treasonous actions with whatever heroic descriptors you like, but it still remains treason. A rose by any other name, as they say.

Honestly, I don't care if they end up changing the name of my town. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and this will always be home.
A: "Do they really think that changing the company's name is going to effectively distance it from the scandal?"
B: "Yeah, I don't get it. A rose by any other name, and all that."​