Everybody define biological male…..

@AverageJoe1 said
Just who brought up this languishing topic. I know nothing about them, all I see is megaphones, and all I hear is screeching. I have written, yes, about creatures. Not about the topic so near and dear to you, the various sexes and genders!!!!!! Jesus H.

Tell me, when they mega-phone, are they yelling at each other, or at passers-by? If passers by, what is the ...[text shortened]... o say that they are in the face of them, and of me. And my children. Leave us a alone, I will say.

Who started this thread?

@no1marauder said
Who started this thread?

Little fella, this is average Joe. I brought it up. It is definitely extrapolate into a lot of issues, but note that none of you ever ever identified a biological male.. NONE OF YOU FELLERS have identified a biological male, defined a biological male, so let’s say that I am so wrong. So you have made this thread that you have had fun with, but back to basics…. And you would be a great candidate, tell us what a biological male is. YOU WILL NOT!!!

Lay your bets, gentlemen. He will not.

@AverageJoe1 said
Little fella, this is average Joe. I brought it up. It is definitely extrapolate into a lot of issues, but note that none of you ever ever identified a biological male.. NONE OF YOU FELLERS have identified a biological male, defined a biological male, so let’s say that I am so wrong. So you have made this thread that you have had fun with, but back to basics…. And you wo ...[text shortened]... , tell us what a biological male is. YOU WILL NOT!!!

Lay your bets, gentlemen. He will not.

You're the one who used the term, not me, and your only definition has to do with a man made piece of paper.

You intend to use such a term to deny the existence of transgender girls and women. This is just a disingenuous propaganda trick as they have existed as a physical reality for at least 75 years and are recognized in law in virtually every State and by SCOTUS decisions.

@no1marauder said
You're the one who used the term, not me, and your only definition has to do with a man made piece of paper.

This one says that AvJoe created the term Biological Male. Do y'all believe for a moment that a conservative would hae eve had the use of a phrase like that? Libs do. You know, using words like gender, when they can neither define, it nor the phrase bilological male. ( hell, i cant even spell it). I do think it means a male person. Let us have Marauder tell us what it means..........................................
He Will NOT!!!!

@AverageJoe1 said
This one says that AvJoe created the term Biological Male. Do y'all believe for a moment that a conservative would hae eve had the use of a phrase like that? Libs do. You know, using words like gender, when they can neither define, it nor the phrase bilological male. ( hell, i cant even spell it). I do think it means a male person. Let us have Marauder tell us what it means..........................................
He Will NOT!!!!

I don't know what YOU mean by it.

And I don't care.

No matter how much you deny it, it has been physically possible to change sexes for at least 75 years by medical means.

And this bothers you sooooooooooooooooo much, that you want the government to do whatever it can to make these people's lives miserable. Petty hate.

@no1marauder said
I don't know what YOU mean by it.

And I don't care.

No matter how much you deny it, it has been physically possible to change sexes for at least 75 years by medical means.

And this bothers you sooooooooooooooooo much, that you want the government to do whatever it can to make these people's lives miserable. Petty hate.

Explain., If I want to have such an operation,, I save up money for a sex operation, or whatever operation you may call it,..... there are doctors, as you suggest in your post, that can do an operation to fulfill my wishes, whatever they may be.
Can you stay within the parameters of this scenario, as I type hereinabove, and tell us why this cannot continue to go on after your 70 years. I think it can, so what are you telling us. Can a person do it, or not?
It'd be nice if you could answer that straight out, and certainly after you do, also tie in what the government would have to do with it. I KNOW it is not provided or in the constitution , so I am particularly curious on that reference.

@AverageJoe1 said
Don' t get gist of religion, atheist, maybe another thread, man. OR a better analogy. But who needs an analogy for this?
Please correct me if I am wrong. Have not posters here condoned that a man can decide that that he IS a woman, or that he IDENTIFIES as a woman, and move through society in that guise? I think they have?
So, given that scenario, can a man, ...[text shortened]... a real discussion after settling on the nature of this, the boundaries thereof. A good discussion.

Again, you don't seem to understanding the notion of 'deciding.'.

The atheist thing was a perfect analogy. I can not decide to be a Christian etc if I do not believe in God at the core of my being, just as I couldn't decide to be an atheist if I truly believed God existed.

Here perhaps is a better analogy. You are a moron, not by choice, but by nature. Recognizing you are a moron might take some time, but eventually you might identify as such, but at no point are you a moron because you have decided to be a moron. Indeed, being a moron is not something you have ever had any control over. it is just who you are.

Hope that clarifies?

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Again, you don't seem to understanding the notion of 'deciding.'.

The atheist thing was a perfect analogy. I can not decide to be a Christian etc if I do not believe in God at the core of my being, just as I couldn't decide to be an atheist if I truly believed God existed.

Here perhaps is a better analogy. You are a moron, not by choice, but by nature. Recogni ...[text shortened]... is not something you have ever had any control over. it is just who you are.

Hope that clarifies?

You are assuming the very point under dispute: that gender identity is an innate, immutable characteristic in exactly the same sense as being an atheist or having an intellectual limitation.

Si, consider the distinction between what someone feels they are , and what they decide to do about that feeling. You seem to be proving my point rather than yours..


I’m not saying someone simply wades up one morning and chooses what they feel internally. I’m saying there is a distinction between an internal feeling or conviction and the decision to identify, present, or physically alter oneself on the basis of that conviction.

Diff is, An atheist doesn’t merely “decide” that God doesn’t exist and thereby change his physical identity. But a person CAN decide to publicly identify as an atheist, just as a person can decide to present themselves as a particular gender and take steps to alter their body accordingly.

So let’s separate two questions: What does a person believe or feel themselves to be? And what choices do they make in response to that belief or feeling?

You seem to be treating the first as settled fact and then using that assumption to prove the second. I do not get you there. Can’t do that.

In other words, a guy saying that “I didn’t choose to have the feeling” does not logically mean “none of my subsequent choices are choices.” Those are two different propositions. You are making me dizzy.

Too philosophical for me, I give.

@AverageJoe1 said
You are assuming the very point under dispute: that gender identity is an innate, immutable characteristic in exactly the same sense as being an atheist or having an intellectual limitation.

Si, consider the distinction between what someone feels they are , and what they decide to do about that feeling. You seem to be proving my point rather than yours..


I’m not ...[text shortened]... re two different propositions. You are making me dizzy.

Too philosophical for me, I give.

Yes, there is a distinction between what someone feels they are at a deep level (non-choice based) and then what they choose to do about that feeling. In the past, such a person might choose to suppress that feeling and live an unhappy life (in fear perhaps of persecution or being judged) whereas in the modern world, choose to embrace who they are and live their life to the fullest.

You seem to resent the latter.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Yes, there is a distinction between what someone feels they are at a deep level (non-choice based) and then what they choose to do about that feeling. In the past, such a person might choose to suppress that feeling and live an unhappy life (in fear perhaps of persecution or being judged) whereas in the modern world, choose to embrace who they are and live their life to the fullest.

You seem to resent the latter.

Now you assigne me a motive? Geez

That’s not what I’m saying. I don’t resent anyone for trying to live a life that makes them happy. You’re changing the argument by turning a disagreement about choice and behavior into an accusation about my feelings toward people. Geez. Y’all do get personal, no need in an anonymous forum.

I agree that someone can experience feelings or a sense of identity that they did not consciously choose. But that does not mean every decision they make in response to those feelings is itself non-choice. Feeling something and deciding what to do about it are two different things. TWO diff things. Geez.

Stay with the actual question: Are you saying that because a person does not choose the underlying feeling, that they therefore do not choose the actions they take in response to it? If so, explain that distinction, because that is the point we are actually debating. So simple.

@AverageJoe1 said
Now you assigne me a motive? Geez

That’s not what I’m saying. I don’t resent anyone for trying to live a life that makes them happy. You’re changing the argument by turning a disagreement about choice and behavior into an accusation about my feelings toward people. Geez. Y’all do get personal, no need in an anonymous forum.

I agree that someone can experience fee ...[text shortened]... it? If so, explain that distinction, because that is the point we are actually debating. So simple.

But that is exactly what you have indicated, voicing your disapproval of parades and the like, basically an objection to people openly/happily expressing who they are. - You would prefer they lived their lives in the shadows, no? - But not you hey. You can express your true self openly, because you are 'normal,' not an aberrant.

No, to your last question.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
But that is exactly what you have indicated, voicing your disapproval of parades and the like, basically an objection to people openly/happily expressing who they are. - You would prefer they lived their lives in the shadows, no? - But not you hey. You can express your true self openly, because you are 'normal,' not an aberrant.

No, to your last question.

My posit lion is more about public behavior and boundaries, not whether people are allowed to exist. I said nothing about living in the shadows. You are creating a false choice between ‘express yourself openly’ and ‘live in the shadows.’ There is a middle ground: people can live however they choose without expecting everyone else to celebrate, endorse, or participate in their expression. They overdo expressing to us,,,we don’t care. It is like two different cultures you see, as far as I’m concerned.

They can live like they want to.My objection is to the idea that because someone identifies a certain way, everyone else must be expected to approve of or embrace every public expression of it.

And calling me ‘normal’ and them ‘aberrant’ isn’t the point. The real question is: Does being free to live as you choose also give you a right to demand that everyone else approve of how you choose to live? I say no. They literally demand of us that we approved of them. Bull crap.

You are free to express your views, and I’m free to say that I don’t like some of what I see. That’s not persecution. That’s simply disagreement.

And You keep confusing tolerance with approval. I can believe people have the right to live as they choose, without believing that every public expression of that choice is appropriate or something I should celebrate.


An overall observation to this is that liberal seem to want to project themselves to other people. Why cannot liberals live within themselves like we do?? a good question I think

@AverageJoe1 said
My posit lion is more about public behavior and boundaries, not whether people are allowed to exist. I said nothing about living in the shadows. You are creating a false choice between ‘express yourself openly’ and ‘live in the shadows.’ There is a middle ground: people can live however they choose without expecting everyone else to celebrate, endorse, or participate in t ...[text shortened]... ves to other people. Why cannot liberals live within themselves like we do?? a good question I think

What is a 'posit lion'?

Backspace is your friend.

@AverageJoe1 said

An overall observation to this is that liberal seem to want to project themselves to other people. Why cannot liberals live within themselves like we do?? a good question I think

And yet you still manage to show everyone who you are by spewing out your disgust of everything normal.

This is why you get blowback, because you CANNOT stop posting about yourselves and the disgusting things YOU like, like ICE.

How many times have we had to wade through YOUR nonsensical posts about how great Donald Trump is?

@AverageJoe1 said
My posit lion is more about public behavior and boundaries, not whether people are allowed to exist. I said nothing about living in the shadows. You are creating a false choice between ‘express yourself openly’ and ‘live in the shadows.’ There is a middle ground: people can live however they choose without expecting everyone else to celebrate, endorse, or participate in t ...[text shortened]... ves to other people. Why cannot liberals live within themselves like we do?? a good question I think

No one is asking you to celebrate, and who is making such demands of you?

Crikey, what country do you live in.