It's almost like nearly every culture throughout human history dividing humans into "man" and "woman" had reasons for doing so
.
But at least no one feels ostracized, I suppose
.
Except, you know. The vagina-havers and penis-havers who do.
.
.
And no, I wouldn't have sex with someone who "prefers to have a penis." I'd prefer to have 30 million dollars and the ability of flight.
That doesn't make me a millionaire or an angel/bird-person/superhero.
.
that guy would prefer to be Asian and look like some kpop idol or something. He had surgery and made the claim. That doesn't make him Asian or the kpop idol.

I remember hearing about a human who would "prefer not having a penis" disrobing in a change room for those-who-possess-vaginas. There were children in the room. The vagina-havers I'm sure had to have very long talks with their children about why it's fine for strangers with penises to disrobe in front of them in such a place, because the stranger with a penis really wishes the penis wasn't there. Or maybe the vagina-lacker just claims they do for the purpose of disrobing in front of vagina-havers and children. Fuck knows that's happened multiple times before.
.
I remember a couple years ago when that same act would have gotten that person arrested for multiple reasons.
.
A vagina-haver expressed distress at the situation and was informed there was nothing to be done because the human-who-wishes-their-penis-wasn't takes precedent over everyone else

Lol gave him a good finger wagging did you?

I mean, I definitely prefer having penis

@catfluff safe once again

But not anti-psychotic medication

You claim the words "woman" and "man" are not synonymous with "human." You claim they are also not synonymous with each other. And you also claim that any human on the planet can fall under either of those definitions at any moment, should they say the words "I feel like this."
.
So define it.
.
Define woman. Define man.
.
Make it clear. Lay out what separates these groups from each other. How do we tell them apart? What characteristics separate women from man to such a degree that they are deserving of their own words?
.
Saying "a woman is someone who feels feminine" is dead-end logic as well, since then you have to define femininity.

And you have literally redefine the definition of Asian to now mean "anyone who feels Asian."
.
Which literally is the same as saying "any human in existence." It's a meaningless word.
.
And what is your point with the testosterone and estrogen levels? No one said they didn't have that going on (assuming your study is correct - other studies have found transgenderism is often connected to abusive backgrounds so I'm not sure where we're going with this).
.
There ARE women that have higher testosterone levels than men but it:
1. Isn't common
2. Isn't the only defining characteristic.
.
It's an anomaly, not a standard.
.
I genuinely am at a loss as to how someone so quick to whip out definitions to prove their point seems to have no grasp on the concept that words have meanings.

I sincerely suggest you elaborate on whatever question it is you're talking about before accusing me of avoiding it. Or is the issue merely that you dislike my answer?
.
Race is literally not the result of history? - it's the result of biology and location. People with specific characteristics pass those down to their children - NOT through osmosis, but through genetic reproduction. And celebrating a different culture in no way makes you part of that race. If it did, people wouldn't be bitching about cultural appropriation all the time.
.
But, again, if you're fine with people changing their gender and can accept that, then you have no leg to stand on when it comes to trasnracialism either. Those people just *feel* more Asian. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel more like I'm Latina and who is anyone to tell me I'm not?

I don't really have the energy to walk around in circles anymore.
.
I will say it seems like this conversation has proven dash right after all -- the point of cishet may not be to create confusion, but it has certainly accomplished the task rather expertly

To quote someone who said it better than me:
"Saying the definition of a woman is anyone who feels like a woman is a circular definition that leads nowhere."
.
What is a woman? Someone who says I feel like a woman.
.
What differentiates that in any way from a man? Either there are differences between the genders, or there aren't.
.
If there aren't, then sex ed needs a complete restructuring because we apparently shouldn't require fluid from a particular type of human to be injected inside the body of a particular type of other human to reproduce.
.
If there ARE, then we end up back at women and men are different, requiring separate terminology (and health resources...), and that trans men and women do not fully fit into those categories.
.
This does not make trans men and women any less than anyone else. But it does mean they are not the same. Which is something I thought everyone used to be aware of, but apparently not. And that's the entire point of the trans prefix.

And once again:
The term woman loses it's meaning if it becomes "anyone who says I'm a woman."
.
There are no traits separating women from men. They don't exist.
.
There has to be a definitive difference between the words or they are synonymous.
.
Same for the acorn thing. I literally can't understand why I've had to go over this 6 or 7 times now.
.
If "acorn" is used to refer to both a seed that is an acorn and a seed that ISN'T an acorn, than the word acorn no longer means "acorn" specifically at all. It just means *"seed" or "nut" perhaps We already have words that means seed/nut. 10 points to whoever can guess what word it is. If a
.
.
*(I'm fairly sleep deprived so feel free to argue schematics if I used the wrong terminology to classify acorns and pine cones)
.
.
For Martin Luther -- ahh okay, that is definitely my bad then. Fair enough, apologies for the confusion there. Not sure why I thought you meant King. I don't know enough about the other Martin Luther either, clearly

You can argue that particular issue if you like - I am talking literally about a person not born in Asian, who has no Asian heritage, who did not grow up in Asia, suddenly claiming:
1. I am asian
2. The definition of Asian must now be altered to fit MY standard.
.
^ this is literally a real life thing that happened btw, and the same people claiming you can change gender are outraged. But continue arguing you can change race as well if you like - and if you're not going to, kindly explain how you find that any different
.
Calling them "new Asians" is ostracization in your mind, but telling the original Asians "this person is now a full fledged Asian, Asian now means something else entirely, and YOU must now be referred to as traditional-asian so we don't hurt their feelings" isn't ostracization? What a bizarre way to justify hypocrisy

@dash224 lol Hi5!
.
I think there probably are or were more non-politically correct females on this site. Sadly a lot of the less PC people either lost interest in the site (not them exclusively mind you), or for many of the ones I've encountered here, they often admit at some point that they just don't find the pile-on and endless rhetoric worth it
.
Either way you're not out here all by yourself offending people with your existence, no worries :P

4. My comments weren't rage either they were also disagreement. Perhaps slightly less polite disagreement, but disagreement nonetheless. I never claimed to be polite. Bit of a bitch, actually. The only genuine rage I saw was in Lydia's initial comment

The trans community does exist - never said otherwise. That's why there is the term transgender to begin with - to explain there are men and there are women. Many of them clearly defined. And then there are trans men and transwomen, who were born with the traits of one gender, but prefer to live with and adopt the traits of another.
.
If you say a woman is a woman who feels like a woman and a woman is a man who feels like a woman we now have no defining trait that separates men and women to begin with. Saying there are people who wish to be another gender is not contradictory in any way to my point.

3. A definition adapting doesn't mean it's devoid of meaning, correct. But THESE definitions DO devoid man and woman of meaning. If the definition is "whoever feels like this" and the "feeling" is whatever people say on a given day (recently heard people describe pregnancy as feeling masculine for example), then man and woman mean nothing at all.
.
Oak trees exist. Pine trees exist. Oak trees produce acorns, pine trees needles. If you deny that acorns are a trait that set oak trees apart -- that the pine tree says it's cones are acorns now -- and change the definition of "acorn" to "anything that says it's an acorn" than acorn now ceases to have a meaning beyond "some kind of seed produced by some tree." Congratulations you have now redefined the word to mean "seed," and made an acorn now a type of seed that is a type of seed that is produced by a type of tree that produces a type of seed.

1. You used an example involving minority religions, and I ran with it. If you didn't expect that making a statement comparing religious terminology to gender terminology would result in a rebuttal comparing religious terminology to gender terminology, then my advice would be to avoid comparing the two in the first place.
.
Either way it's irrelevant -- you could have compared races, cultures, whatever. A white person suddenly declaring they are Asian, and that Asian people are to be referred to as "original-asian."
.
.
2. I didn't mix the Martin Luther's up, I just used a shorter version of "King's" name. I assumed that because you had referenced him originally it would be fine, but I can see how it would cause confusion. Probably would have been better to go with MLK, but that makes me think of MGK,

I'll find them homes outside

Lol why

Do NOT squish the fruit

The tolerant at their finest :P

@porch_light tbh I don't know the facts about the weaponry. Famous seems to have dived into it a decent amount, but if you're unsure it's always good to do your own research.
.
The one thing I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, though, is whatever happened there has been extremely blown out of proportion. I've seen them catch the media -- and the politicians themselves (especially AOC) in lie after lie when it comes to what went down there.
.
I don't think everyone on Trump's side went there completely unarmed necessarily, or with completely peaceful intent, because outside of Ghandi that almost never happens. But I also don't believe this was one of the single greatest terrorist attacks on the nation's history. I think comparing it to them is a goddamn insult. I don't believe it came even close to the majority of the riots we've been forced to accept as "peaceful protest."
.
We KNOW Antifa was involved and masquerading among the rioters to make shit worse.

^ more of that rage I've heard so much about :P