Pronouns

The point is about numbers/percentages, not crime.

So they're asking us to lie in speech?

Why should we do this for a tiny percent?

If you say you are 21 and try to drink,

Bartender asks for ID.

If a guy or girl enters the bathroom/changing room/bath house of the opposite sex,

Are they not asked to leave?

The existence of this thread seems to imply that I 'am expected to pretend men are women, and that women are men?

Is sex not quantifiable?

Is it not an expectation in society that children are raised in accordance with their sex?

The fact that many individuals need sex surgery, implies that their sex was obvious enough before altering their body it as something else.

So what does this thread and you imply or want of people?

Yet there's the problem when they enter the opposites sex's sport,

Why people would want a separation of sports by sex, seems clear enough to me.

> The same reason why you would make laws excluding the very small percent of pedophilles we have from being within schools.

the same reason

which is presumably, BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND GENERALLY CONSIDERED A DANGER TO SOCIETY

No I still think it is wrong, trans women are men, under the best, most scientific and useful definition. What you have done is essentially saying "1+1 is 15 because well under my definition of the word, it's the case". You haven't proved why the term is necessary, or how it helps.  

You are basically building into your view the idea that it's never legitimate for people to use words in a new way, to use different definitions or grammatical rules.

You say you don't support age because it obfuscates the difference between biological boys and men. That's a perfectly good critique, and I'm confused as to why you don't apply it to gender.

I don't know why you keep asking this question, because I already said that it's because children lack autonomy.

The reasons on the other side is literally to make >1% percent of the society correct. Oughtn't truth prioritize such an endeavour? 

You already agreed that it isn't an issue of truth, but about how we use language.

But I know all this. I know that Bones isn't a real name, so people who argue that it is not my given legal name are correct. I don't mind that. Bones is a different label for a different purpose. Whatever my name is, whether it Bone or Bones, does not and cannot change any objective fact about me. 

The same thing applies with biological sex. Trans women are aware that their biological sex is not female, and their preferred gender pronoun implies nothing about their biology.

I've already established why this name-gender link is fraudulent - the term "man" is a noun, and you still haven't given me a cogent definition of the term and thus your entire argument is void on that ground. 

So your problem with "trans ideology" comes down to, we shouldn't be using a noun in a way that doesn't follow the usual grammatical rules for nouns? It seems like a trivial issue to me.

I want to be clear that if this isn't an intentional strawman, this is not my view at all. My view isn't that words can't change or evolve, my view is that when we do decide to change terms, we ought to do so because the new term is better, not because it makes some people happy. 

Autonomy? Are you denying their sense of self and desired expression?

Also again I could make a shift then to, instead of describing age, to use species as an example. 

• Gender is the way one feels in relation to their sex 
  
• Speeses is the way in which one feels in relation to their species.  
  

Ought we now take "speeses" over "species"? Under your view, it would seem so. 

But how we use language can obfuscates and covers truth. If we I take the terms "1+1" and redefine them so that technically, what I mean when referencing "1+1" is different to you, I'm obviously muddying the waters. 

But it does, because the term "women" for the entirety of linguistic history, has been grounded in biology, and redefining it without a good reason (or even a definition you can provide) is counter productive. 

Also, I'm not sure your claim that trans women aren't aware they aren't actual women is true. They want to compete in women's sports, be legally women, enter women's facilities and demand you are transphobic if you don't date them purely on the grounds that they a trans. 

I want to be clear that if this isn't an intentional strawman, this is not my view at all. My view isn't that words can't change or evolve, my view is that when we do decide to change terms, we ought to do so because the new term is better, not because it makes some people happy. 

But in any case, where you use the language in a new way, someone who thinks your use is worse could muddy the water by calling your statement "false" according to their previous definition, making it appear that you are confused about the underlying reality.

Also, your position might allow for changes in definition, but it does not seem to allow for changes in syntax or grammar, since you believe that all nouns should be definable in a particular way that you prefer.

Even if their language is "meaningless" according to your standard, that doesn't necessarily make it "wrong" - just as a lot of art would also be considered meaningless in terms of a strict semantic definition of meaning as reference to an object. Yet it functions as a legitimate vehicle for self-expression.

Autonomy? Are you denying their sense of self and desired expression?

Yes.

Also again I could make a shift then to, instead of describing age, to use species as an example. 

• Gender is the way one feels in relation to their sex 
  
• Speeses is the way in which one feels in relation to their species.  
  

Ought we now take "speeses" over "species"? Under your view, it would seem so. 

I don't know why, every time I answer this you seem to just ask the same question again, or switch to another of the three examples. You haven't actually shown what is wrong with the answers I have given.

But how we use language can obfuscates and covers truth. If we I take the terms "1+1" and redefine them so that technically, what I mean when referencing "1+1" is different to you, I'm obviously muddying the waters. 

But which truths you think should be made transparent and culturally emphasized is actually an ideological position.

But it does, because the term "women" for the entirety of linguistic history, has been grounded in biology, and redefining it without a good reason (or even a definition you can provide) is counter productive. 

Notwithstanding the edge cases and wedge issues emphasized by conservatives (e.g. being "forced" to use someone's preferred pronouns)

the trans issue really is an issue of freedom of expression.

As this is going around in circles, would you like to have a debate on this topic? I propose "THBT: We ought to define "women" in terms of sex, as opposed to gender". 

As this is going around in circles, would you like to have a debate on this topic? I propose "THBT: We ought to define "women" in terms of sex, as opposed to gender".