I will not continue debating with you if you keep deflecting the topic from transgender women and remain on the topic of religion. This is not a religious debate.
The only thing I shall say is:
“ Are you in favor of banning Christianity to uphold women's rights?”
I don’t believe in state religion therefore, I don’t believe in banning a religion nor providing a platform for it to flourish.
If it is the person’s choice to practise Christianity then, they may do so in the comfort of their own home however, it should not interfere with the State or the rights of the people or ejusdem generis. If they break the law, they will be charged.
If an individual wishes to transition then, they may do so in their own comfort however, it should not interfere with the rights of people, others (ejusdem generis) or the State. If they break the law, they will be charged.
Not everyone is a Christian.
Not everyone is a Buddhist.
Not everyone is a Muslim.
Not everyone is an Atheist.
Nobody should be subjected to practise a certain religion by the state. This is not a discussion about religion, I am referring to the sexes at raw level.
I have already asked you to stop deflecting the topic matter.
“ Any reasonable individual, OF THE SAME KIND, ‘ejusdem generis’. Are you telling me that individuals, men or women, who murder and slaughter are reasonable individuals? No. They are not.”
Note: “Are you telling me that individuals, men or women, who murder and slaughter are reasonable individuals? No.”
And yes, transgender people can be reasonable and their demands reasonable however, when that begins to affect the rights of a biological woman, it is unacceptable. They are the minority, we are not going to cater to them.
Yes, biological women, biological men, and transgender people are usually reasonable people by nature however, some are not.
This extends into your belief on human nature but I believe that humans are inherently good and reasonable - which is a Liberal belief.
To believe that human beings, biologically, are not reasonable is more of a conservative belief. To which, I am not.
Yes, all people have distinct features which is why here, we can differentiate between the sexes. However men and women, nonetheless, fall under the same category - the sexes - due to the possession of reproductive functions.
A “biological woman” would generally be a “reasonable individual”.
“Distinct from another”, all have distinct features, transgender people, biological men, and biological women.
“Same kind” meaning gender in this instance, transgender should, in my opinion, be recognised as its own gender.
Christians were never mentioned by myself, only you. A majority of Christians are reasonable however those who murder, rape, and slaughter are not, nor are they recognised such within the law. The same for transgendered people, ciswomen, and cismen.
Stop taking everything as an ‘attack’ on transgendered people.
Stop making up arguments based on wobbly foundations. It is evident that the meaning remains consistent, I only changed it recently due to your lack of understanding - I merely simplified it for you.
It is evident that you lack necessary comprehension skills when it comes to such things.
As you cannot do such by yourself, allow me to specify what I mean by :
“ ‘Other’, in this case, means any reasonable individual.”
Any reasonable individual, OF THE SAME KIND, ‘ejusdem generis’. Are you telling me that individuals, men or women, who murder and slaughter are reasonable individuals? No. They are not.
Am I saying that transgendered people are unreasonable? No.
It would be the same if I had said:
“Until their cisgendered rights interfere on the rights of others”.
‘Other’ here would be referring to any reasonable individual…
OF THE SAME KIND - gender -
In which comment did I bring forth Christianity? Because you will find that it was you who brought up the topic of religion. You cannot stay on topic. I never defended them either.
I have explained my intention numerous times, you are simply being narrow minded and wilfully ignorant.
It isn’t changing a definition when you refer to a category of a gender and referring to a set of individuals who differentiate from transgender - such as men and women - as ‘other’.
Also, not once did I list transgender people as ‘unreasonable’? I meant that people who were interpreting my comment the wrong way were being unreasonable.
But once again, you have tried taking the comment and escalating the discussion, creating a bigger scene than necessary.
You are over- inflating points in order to shut down the conversation however, upon further inspection, they are all misconstrued.
Once again, you misinterpreted my comment. REASONABLE people who see I used the term ‘Other’ would know I meant other people who aren’t transgender, biological man and woman. As transgender is of the same category of the sexes, they are the third sex.
I am not attacking trans. I, as a cisgendered woman, am voicing my opinion and concerns with the transgender community competing against cisgendered women in sports.
I did not state “other” in order to discuss religion or political stance. ‘Other’, in this case, means any reasonable individual.
Other
pronoun
1.
a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.
"a language unrelated to any other"
“Other people” who are different from transgender people therefore, biological men and women - that was my intention and that is what would be generally accepted.
Truth does hurt a lot and that is exactly why your responses are becoming passive aggressive. If you cannot handle varying opinions then I commend refraining from debating until you can be more receptive to the opinions of others.
I swear to God if this was a troll I’m going to bash my head on a wall
Once again, you are claiming everything to be an ‘attack’ on trans rights.
I will not continue debating with you if you keep deflecting the topic from transgender women and remain on the topic of religion. This is not a religious debate.
The only thing I shall say is:
“ Are you in favor of banning Christianity to uphold women's rights?”
I don’t believe in state religion therefore, I don’t believe in banning a religion nor providing a platform for it to flourish.
If it is the person’s choice to practise Christianity then, they may do so in the comfort of their own home however, it should not interfere with the State or the rights of the people or ejusdem generis. If they break the law, they will be charged.
If an individual wishes to transition then, they may do so in their own comfort however, it should not interfere with the rights of people, others (ejusdem generis) or the State. If they break the law, they will be charged.
Not everyone is a Christian.
Not everyone is a Buddhist.
Not everyone is a Muslim.
Not everyone is an Atheist.
Nobody should be subjected to practise a certain religion by the state. This is not a discussion about religion, I am referring to the sexes at raw level.
I have already asked you to stop deflecting the topic matter.
I have previously stated this :
“ Any reasonable individual, OF THE SAME KIND, ‘ejusdem generis’. Are you telling me that individuals, men or women, who murder and slaughter are reasonable individuals? No. They are not.”
Note: “Are you telling me that individuals, men or women, who murder and slaughter are reasonable individuals? No.”
And yes, transgender people can be reasonable and their demands reasonable however, when that begins to affect the rights of a biological woman, it is unacceptable. They are the minority, we are not going to cater to them.
Yes, biological women, biological men, and transgender people are usually reasonable people by nature however, some are not.
This extends into your belief on human nature but I believe that humans are inherently good and reasonable - which is a Liberal belief.
To believe that human beings, biologically, are not reasonable is more of a conservative belief. To which, I am not.
Yes, all people have distinct features which is why here, we can differentiate between the sexes. However men and women, nonetheless, fall under the same category - the sexes - due to the possession of reproductive functions.
He brings up a valid point as it is a valid point made up entirely of his own imaginary argument.
Nobody is changing definitions, opposition is purposely misconstruing my comments then, gets angry when I simplify my comments to their standard.
A “biological woman” would generally be a “reasonable individual”.
“Distinct from another”, all have distinct features, transgender people, biological men, and biological women.
“Same kind” meaning gender in this instance, transgender should, in my opinion, be recognised as its own gender.
Christians were never mentioned by myself, only you. A majority of Christians are reasonable however those who murder, rape, and slaughter are not, nor are they recognised such within the law. The same for transgendered people, ciswomen, and cismen.
Stop taking everything as an ‘attack’ on transgendered people.
Stop making up arguments based on wobbly foundations. It is evident that the meaning remains consistent, I only changed it recently due to your lack of understanding - I merely simplified it for you.
Allow me to simplify:
Other
pronoun
1.
a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.
"a language unrelated to any other"
“…that is different or distinct from one already mentioned…”
Men and women are biologically different,
Transmen and men are biologically different,
Transwomen and women are biologically different.
Therefore, ‘other’ is used.
So let me correct my vague statement, made in assumption that I was talking to someone with necessary comprehension skills:
“‘Other’ in this case means any reasonable individual, ejusdem generis, of the same kind.”
You are grasping at straws as a result of your lack of understanding.
It is evident that you lack necessary comprehension skills when it comes to such things.
As you cannot do such by yourself, allow me to specify what I mean by :
“ ‘Other’, in this case, means any reasonable individual.”
Any reasonable individual, OF THE SAME KIND, ‘ejusdem generis’. Are you telling me that individuals, men or women, who murder and slaughter are reasonable individuals? No. They are not.
Am I saying that transgendered people are unreasonable? No.
It would be the same if I had said:
“Until their cisgendered rights interfere on the rights of others”.
‘Other’ here would be referring to any reasonable individual…
OF THE SAME KIND - gender -
In which comment did I bring forth Christianity? Because you will find that it was you who brought up the topic of religion. You cannot stay on topic. I never defended them either.
I have explained my intention numerous times, you are simply being narrow minded and wilfully ignorant.
How so?
It isn’t changing a definition when you refer to a category of a gender and referring to a set of individuals who differentiate from transgender - such as men and women - as ‘other’.
Christianity is irrelevant here.
If I was to ‘run’, why would I still be replying?
I never mentioned Christians in my comment, at all. That is something you added on later, you brought up Christians.
Being ‘pretty’ is the least of my worries.
I am not an alternative account.
You misinterpreted my comment, you have now realised you were wrong, and now you are deflecting.
Also, I had to bring up the definition because you clearly did not understand what was meant when the word was used.
Also, not once did I list transgender people as ‘unreasonable’? I meant that people who were interpreting my comment the wrong way were being unreasonable.
But once again, you have tried taking the comment and escalating the discussion, creating a bigger scene than necessary.
You are over- inflating points in order to shut down the conversation however, upon further inspection, they are all misconstrued.
Once again, you misinterpreted my comment. REASONABLE people who see I used the term ‘Other’ would know I meant other people who aren’t transgender, biological man and woman. As transgender is of the same category of the sexes, they are the third sex.
Change what definition ?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/other
Yes, I do care about rights which is why I’m having this debate.
I am not attacking trans. I, as a cisgendered woman, am voicing my opinion and concerns with the transgender community competing against cisgendered women in sports.
I did not state “other” in order to discuss religion or political stance. ‘Other’, in this case, means any reasonable individual.
Other
pronoun
1.
a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.
"a language unrelated to any other"
“Other people” who are different from transgender people therefore, biological men and women - that was my intention and that is what would be generally accepted.
Truth does hurt a lot and that is exactly why your responses are becoming passive aggressive. If you cannot handle varying opinions then I commend refraining from debating until you can be more receptive to the opinions of others.
To reply to a debate regarding something entirely different and changing the subject is a fallacy.
Stay on topic, we don’t want “whatasboutism” here.
Not once did I mention violence in my comment.
Until they interfere with the rights of another.
Oh yikes...
What?