FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > What is a Man ?
What is a Man ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uh-oh" Uh huh  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the back of Woody's thread giving long overdue praised to men ..... What is a man ?" I'll say it... Someone born with a penis 🍆 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the back of Woody's thread giving long overdue praised to men ..... What is a man ? I'll say it... Someone born with a penis 🍆" What if yiu xy but have the rare condition of Aphallia (absent penis) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A man can be clearly defined to a human that can catch “ man flu “ " Or someone who is told to “man -up” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the back of Woody's thread giving long overdue praised to men ..... What is a man ? I'll say it... Someone born with a penis 🍆 What if yiu xy but have the rare condition of Aphallia (absent penis) "A human should have two arms and two legs, that's the accepted norm. If they are born with one or more appendages missing, or even extra ones, does that make them less of a human? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the back of Woody's thread giving long overdue praised to men ..... What is a man ? I'll say it... Someone born with a penis 🍆 What if yiu xy but have the rare condition of Aphallia (absent penis)
A human should have two arms and two legs, that's the accepted norm. If they are born with one or more appendages missing, or even extra ones, does that make them less of a human? "No but your original statement is that a male must have penis now your changing it to human | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is man? What has he got? If not himself, then he has naught To say the things he truly feels And not the words of one who kneels" I did put a warning not to dare do a Frank but then I thought ........ what the hell , let it be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A man can be clearly defined to a human that can catch “ man flu “ Or someone who is told to “man -up” " Gee, I wonder why men don't show their emotions, and unalive themselves... #wemustdobetter | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What if you xy but have the rare condition of Aphallia (absent penis) "The closest you can get scientifically is probably 'a human with an active SRY gene' ...but you can probably find exceptions even to that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A man is anyone who has "Man" next to their username on Fab." Like Mandy ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A man is anyone who has "Man" next to their username on Fab. Like Mandy ?" No, the word "Man" to the right of the green arrow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the back of Woody's thread giving long overdue praised to men ..... What is a man ? I'll say it... Someone born with a penis 🍆 What if yiu xy but have the rare condition of Aphallia (absent penis)
A human should have two arms and two legs, that's the accepted norm. If they are born with one or more appendages missing, or even extra ones, does that make them less of a human?
No but your original statement is that a male must have penis now your changing it to human "I'm making a comparison, pay attention. I said a man has a penis. You said what if they had the rare condition of aphallia, where the penis doesn't grow. I asked is a human less of a human because they don't have the correct appendages. I'm making a comparison. Does the fact he doesn't have what his rare condition deprives him of make him less of a man? Do you understand now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A real man is someone who's got past the age of using Lynx by the can full each time they spray. " If you can't smell me a mile down the street, then I haven't done my job properly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A real man is someone who's got past the age of using Lynx by the can full each time they spray. If you can't smell me a mile down the street, then I haven't done my job properly " No silly, that's when you need to crack out the soap! 🤪 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. " Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day." Biology knows the difference between gender and sex! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day. Biology knows the difference between gender and sex!" That argument has been done to death on here. There are those of you who believe you are right, and there are others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day. Biology knows the difference between gender and sex! That argument has been done to death on here. There are those of you who believe you are right, and there are others." You're right it has been done to death.... Next! I | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day. Biology knows the difference between gender and sex! That argument has been done to death on here. There are those of you who believe you are right, and there are others. You're right it has been done to death.... Next! I " How much Lynx, is too much Lynx? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day. Biology knows the difference between gender and sex! That argument has been done to death on here. There are those of you who believe you are right, and there are others. You're right it has been done to death.... Next! I How much Lynx, is too much Lynx?" if people around you are coughing and giving you stink eye | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day." And you've said, to these trans men you know on a personal level, "I believe that a man is someone who was born with a penis, therefore you are not and never will be a man to me" and they were perfectly fine with this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day. Biology knows the difference between gender and sex! That argument has been done to death on here. There are those of you who believe you are right, and there are others. You're right it has been done to death.... Next! I How much Lynx, is too much Lynx?" Too much! I'm sorry I don't understand the question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day. Biology knows the difference between gender and sex! That argument has been done to death on here. There are those of you who believe you are right, and there are others. You're right it has been done to death.... Next! I How much Lynx, is too much Lynx? Too much! I'm sorry I don't understand the question " I can feel that sentiment as a memory in my throat. Sitting on a school bus feeling the Lynx close my throat up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A man is an adult boy." But only just | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the back of Woody's thread giving long overdue praised to men ..... What is a man ? I'll say it... Someone born with a penis 🍆 What if yiu xy but have the rare condition of Aphallia (absent penis)
A human should have two arms and two legs, that's the accepted norm. If they are born with one or more appendages missing, or even extra ones, does that make them less of a human?
No but your original statement is that a male must have penis now your changing it to human
I'm making a comparison, pay attention. I said a man has a penis. You said what if they had the rare condition of aphallia, where the penis doesn't grow. I asked is a human less of a human because they don't have the correct appendages. I'm making a comparison. Does the fact he doesn't have what his rare condition deprives him of make him less of a man? Do you understand now?"Yes but yiur original quote imply gender is only gained thro what yiur genitals are not what yiu actually are and how yiu see yourself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Someone who gets novelty socks and a lynx set every Christmas " Big up the socks and lynx sets man I've not bought one in 10 year because I get 20 at christmas  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day. Biology knows the difference between gender and sex! That argument has been done to death on here. There are those of you who believe you are right, and there are others. You're right it has been done to death.... Next! I How much Lynx, is too much Lynx? " Don't even think there's a thong that's like saying how much sex appeal is too much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day." It’s lucky then that there’s so much evidence to support the existence of trans people from a biological aspect too. From genetic changes (I mean this was first found in 2018, it’s not new) to observable mri changes within the brain (2019 again not new). Its such luck that science is a little more complex than the gcse biology class don’t you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Someone who pisses on the toilet seat if it’s left down " 🤣🤣🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day. It’s lucky then that there’s so much evidence to support the existence of trans people from a biological aspect too. From genetic changes (I mean this was first found in 2018, it’s not new) to observable mri changes within the brain (2019 again not new). Its such luck that science is a little more complex than the gcse biology class don’t you think?" Can you quote me and show where I've denied the existence of trans people? They exist, there's no denying that, I just don't conform to what a very vocal minority is trying to 'convince' me to believe. Leave it at that shall we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the back of Woody's thread giving long overdue praised to men ..... What is a man ?" Nothing compared to a woman?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the back of Woody's thread giving long overdue praised to men ..... What is a man ? Nothing compared to a woman?." You all go through so much, I'd hate to have to sit down every time I need a loo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My definition of men includes trans men. Because they’re men. And fuck rejecting someone’s identity when you yourself don’t know their struggle. Stephen, I emphasise with a trans man's struggle as much as the next person, and believe me, I know a fair few on a personal level. But, I'll believe biology over psychology any day. It’s lucky then that there’s so much evidence to support the existence of trans people from a biological aspect too. From genetic changes (I mean this was first found in 2018, it’s not new) to observable mri changes within the brain (2019 again not new). Its such luck that science is a little more complex than the gcse biology class don’t you think? Can you quote me and show where I've denied the existence of trans people? They exist, there's no denying that, I just don't conform to what a very vocal minority is trying to 'convince' me to believe. Leave it at that shall we? " What a weird thing to say. Did I mention you had denied their existence? I simply replied to your biology comment  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a father a brother " But not a son? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the back of Woody's thread giving long overdue praised to men ..... What is a man ?" Someone who when he wants to cry, he feels he should do it alone. Narrator - Woody will post a jokey reply later | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-IPcVaif3Q " 1. I've never felt more seen. 2. This haircut is back | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-IPcVaif3Q 1. I've never felt more seen. 2. This haircut is back" It's quite an old parody song, but it never gets truly old. Easter egg in the clip - the "new age" guy, in Australia we also used the term "snag" (sensitive new age guy - although the word is also an alternative to sausage) when "metrosexual" was a thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Someone who makes me feel like a woman 👩🏼" Best answer so far! Thread closed 😁 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Balls, penis, sperm, XY chromosomes "But what if someone has XY chromosomes but has no penis or balls and cannot make sperm? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Balls, penis, sperm, XY chromosomes
But what if someone has XY chromosomes but has no penis or balls and cannot make sperm?"The usual answer is that they're such a tiny minority that it doesn't matter and we shouldn't worry about it. Which is reassuring when we're talking about very firm definitions that are supposed to define absolutely everything up to and including whether you can piss in peace in public. Have XY chromosomes and be born with ambiguous genitalia? Guess you don't get a loo, or be able to compete in sport, or whatever, because made up hysteria* * Hippocrates wants his bullshit back, the uterus is not the source of emotions and men (all men, any definition) are perfectly capable of hysteria | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Most times men are only giving flowers on their funeral be sure to give every man in you life flowers every time you see them, a small saying can go a long way " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Someone who makes me feel like a woman 👩🏼" Sounds like you forgot the lyrics to Shanias big song. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Balls, penis, sperm, XY chromosomes
But what if someone has XY chromosomes but has no penis or balls and cannot make sperm?"Then logic would dictate one of 3 things. 1) It's a birth defect such as Swyer syndrome (a condition where some are women born with XY chromosome's but still have all the functioning female parts and is maybe 1 to 5 individuals per 100, 000 born with this condition) OR it's a male born with congenital anorchia syndrome for example. 2) It was against their will and was caused by either a terrible accident or forced mutilation. 3) They are now a trans woman and had the according surgery. There are always exceptions to the rule but these are rarity's, not the norm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Balls, penis, sperm, XY chromosomes
But what if someone has XY chromosomes but has no penis or balls and cannot make sperm?
Then logic would dictate one of 3 things.
1) It's a birth defect such as Swyer syndrome (a condition where some are women born with XY chromosome's but still have all the functioning female parts and is maybe 1 to 5 individuals per 100, 000 born with this condition) OR it's a male born with congenital anorchia syndrome for example.
2) It was against their will and was caused by either a terrible accident or forced mutilation.
3) They are now a trans woman and had the according surgery.
There are always exceptions to the rule but these are rarity's, not the norm. "According to the UK census in 2021, less than 0.5% of individuals actually identify as trans. So only a small minority of people, if the census is correct. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Balls, penis, sperm, XY chromosomes
But what if someone has XY chromosomes but has no penis or balls and cannot make sperm?
Then logic would dictate one of 3 things.
1) It's a birth defect such as Swyer syndrome (a condition where some are women born with XY chromosome's but still have all the functioning female parts and is maybe 1 to 5 individuals per 100, 000 born with this condition) OR it's a male born with congenital anorchia syndrome for example.
2) It was against their will and was caused by either a terrible accident or forced mutilation.
3) They are now a trans woman and had the according surgery.
There are always exceptions to the rule but these are rarity's, not the norm. "Not sure that over a million people in the U.K. alone should be classed as a rarity. 1.7% of the population (figure is probably higher as genetic testing and investigating is not usually carried out on most of the population). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Balls, penis, sperm, XY chromosomes
But what if someone has XY chromosomes but has no penis or balls and cannot make sperm?
Then logic would dictate one of 3 things.
1) It's a birth defect such as Swyer syndrome (a condition where some are women born with XY chromosome's but still have all the functioning female parts and is maybe 1 to 5 individuals per 100, 000 born with this condition) OR it's a male born with congenital anorchia syndrome for example.
2) It was against their will and was caused by either a terrible accident or forced mutilation.
3) They are now a trans woman and had the according surgery.
There are always exceptions to the rule but these are rarity's, not the norm.
Not sure that over a million people in the U.K. alone should be classed as a rarity.
1.7% of the population (figure is probably higher as genetic testing and investigating is not usually carried out on most of the population).
"The figures worldwide are quoted as being as high as 3% and as low as 1%, depending who publishes their findings. So that is a rarity. 97% of the population of the world does not identify as trans. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure that over a million people in the U.K. alone should be classed as a rarity. 1.7% of the population (figure is probably higher as genetic testing and investigating is not usually carried out on most of the population). " I think the best comparison I ever saw was that the frequency of some form of sexual anomaly was about the same % as redheads. I.e. not common, but not sure many people would say rare. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oooft, some threads are getting in amongst it today. Must be the heat 'dahn saff'" These threads always do 🤷♀️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Balls, penis, sperm, XY chromosomes
But what if someone has XY chromosomes but has no penis or balls and cannot make sperm?
Then logic would dictate one of 3 things.
1) It's a birth defect such as Swyer syndrome (a condition where some are women born with XY chromosome's but still have all the functioning female parts and is maybe 1 to 5 individuals per 100, 000 born with this condition) OR it's a male born with congenital anorchia syndrome for example.
2) It was against their will and was caused by either a terrible accident or forced mutilation.
3) They are now a trans woman and had the according surgery.
There are always exceptions to the rule but these are rarity's, not the norm.
Not sure that over a million people in the U.K. alone should be classed as a rarity.
1.7% of the population (figure is probably higher as genetic testing and investigating is not usually carried out on most of the population).
The figures worldwide are quoted as being as high as 3% and as low as 1%, depending who publishes their findings. So that is a rarity. 97% of the population of the world does not identify as trans.
Mrs x"3% is also the same risk as skin cancer… yet most wear sunscreen. Before anyone comes for me I’m not equating people with intersex conditions to cancer, I’m making a point that although 3% seems small it’s really not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Balls, penis, sperm, XY chromosomes
But what if someone has XY chromosomes but has no penis or balls and cannot make sperm?
Then logic would dictate one of 3 things.
1) It's a birth defect such as Swyer syndrome (a condition where some are women born with XY chromosome's but still have all the functioning female parts and is maybe 1 to 5 individuals per 100, 000 born with this condition) OR it's a male born with congenital anorchia syndrome for example.
2) It was against their will and was caused by either a terrible accident or forced mutilation.
3) They are now a trans woman and had the according surgery.
There are always exceptions to the rule but these are rarity's, not the norm.
Not sure that over a million people in the U.K. alone should be classed as a rarity.
1.7% of the population (figure is probably higher as genetic testing and investigating is not usually carried out on most of the population).
The figures worldwide are quoted as being as high as 3% and as low as 1%, depending who publishes their findings. So that is a rarity. 97% of the population of the world does not identify as trans.
Mrs x
3% is also the same risk as skin cancer… yet most wear sunscreen.
Before anyone comes for me I’m not equating people with intersex conditions to cancer, I’m making a point that although 3% seems small it’s really not "So not sure what you are saying. Do you think 3% is a large figure? And that is supposing that the larger estimate is the correct to use, it's been estimated to below 1%, neither of which is a large figure mathematically, especially when you consider the amounts who do not identify as trans, being either 97% or 99% depending on whose figures you use. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Read If by Rudyard Kipling" Is it similar or different to ‘white man’s burden’ by him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So not sure what you are saying. Do you think 3% is a large figure? And that is supposing that the larger estimate is the correct to use, it's been estimated to below 1%, neither of which is a large figure mathematically, especially when you consider the amounts who do not identify as trans, being either 97% or 99% depending on whose figures you use. Mrs x" 1% seems low until you take into account that it's "of the world population"; the estimated 2024 population is 8.1 billion people; in what universe would you consider 81 million people a small number? And would you not agree that the argument that "it's rare so not worth thinking about" stops holding water when you *are* one of the people included in that group? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is? Also silently hating myself for reading yet another of these threads" I'm pretty sure I answered it above. If it's a small enough number, we can deny their rights. Nope. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is? Also silently hating myself for reading yet another of these threads" It's only relevant in gauging the size of intersex and trans populations worldwide. So when another poster stated that he puts his beliefs in biology and science then from a mathematical perspective his argument is quite strong, given that between 97% and 99% of the world's population follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc. I'm not trying to down grade or minimise the effects being intersex or trans has on members of that community. I'm not trying to minimise the struggle they encounter in their lives, I'm just pointing out that for the vast majority of the population, worldwide, the notion of what is a man or a woman, follows the established biological definitions. I also only quoted figures in response to another posters use of figures in relation to intersex and trans. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is? Also silently hating myself for reading yet another of these threads I'm pretty sure I answered it above. If it's a small enough number, we can deny their rights. Nope." Nobody should have their rights denied, I cannot see anyone here even suggesting that. Can you quote any poster on here that's said that because that's abhorrent behaviour if true. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is? Also silently hating myself for reading yet another of these threadsIt's only relevant in gauging the size of intersex and trans populations worldwide. So when another poster stated that he puts his beliefs in biology and science then from a mathematical perspective his argument is quite strong, given that between 97% and 99% of the world's population follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc. I'm not trying to down grade or minimise the effects being intersex or trans has on members of that community. I'm not trying to minimise the struggle they encounter in their lives, I'm just pointing out that for the vast majority of the population, worldwide, the notion of what is a man or a woman, follows the established biological definitions. I also only quoted figures in response to another posters use of figures in relation to intersex and trans. Mrs x" People not identifying as trans doesn’t mean they follow those biological beliefs btw. I’m not trans. I recognise the difference between gender and sex. The difference between ‘biological male’ and ‘man’. These so called relevant statistics do not account for that. They can not be used to draw conclusions from because they don’t tell us anything about a person’s belief on gender. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I'm not trying to down grade or minimise the effects being intersex or trans has on members of that community. I'm not trying to minimise the struggle they encounter in their lives, I'm just pointing out that for the vast majority of the population, worldwide, the notion of what is a man or a woman, follows the established biological definitions. I also only quoted figures in response to another posters use of figures in relation to intersex and trans. Mrs x" I may be reading this section wrong so apologies if I am but are you equating the number of people who are trans and intersex with the number of people who believe what a man or a women is, is more than just the biological definitions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is? Also silently hating myself for reading yet another of these threads I'm pretty sure I answered it above. If it's a small enough number, we can deny their rights. Nope.Nobody should have their rights denied, I cannot see anyone here even suggesting that. Can you quote any poster on here that's said that because that's abhorrent behaviour if true. Mrs x" Conveniently, it has not happened *in this thread* However, I possess this novel technology called a memory which involves things I have read in this forum before. Why would you define something in a way that excludes a portion of the population, no matter how small? Would you define humans excluding red heads or people who develop skin cancer? If not, why would you define "man" or "woman" in the same wayu? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is? Also silently hating myself for reading yet another of these threadsIt's only relevant in gauging the size of intersex and trans populations worldwide. So when another poster stated that he puts his beliefs in biology and science then from a mathematical perspective his argument is quite strong, given that between 97% and 99% of the world's population follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc. I'm not trying to down grade or minimise the effects being intersex or trans has on members of that community. I'm not trying to minimise the struggle they encounter in their lives, I'm just pointing out that for the vast majority of the population, worldwide, the notion of what is a man or a woman, follows the established biological definitions. I also only quoted figures in response to another posters use of figures in relation to intersex and trans. Mrs x People not identifying as trans doesn’t mean they follow those biological beliefs btw. I’m not trans. I recognise the difference between gender and sex. The difference between ‘biological male’ and ‘man’. These so called relevant statistics do not account for that. They can not be used to draw conclusions from because they don’t tell us anything about a person’s belief on gender. " I'm sorry but the census didn't account for biology, it simply asked for those 'identifying as", no need to establish any evidence of transition. So it does take into account what you contest. Less than 0.5% of tge population identify as trans, this is not my figure it's the Census Office, if you don't agree with them I suggest you approach them and ask them to expand on their results. I have nothing against trans people at all, nothing but I feel I have to accept the math of the official bodies here until such time that they are proven wrong. If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is? Also silently hating myself for reading yet another of these threadsIt's only relevant in gauging the size of intersex and trans populations worldwide. So when another poster stated that he puts his beliefs in biology and science then from a mathematical perspective his argument is quite strong, given that between 97% and 99% of the world's population follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc. I'm not trying to down grade or minimise the effects being intersex or trans has on members of that community. I'm not trying to minimise the struggle they encounter in their lives, I'm just pointing out that for the vast majority of the population, worldwide, the notion of what is a man or a woman, follows the established biological definitions. I also only quoted figures in response to another posters use of figures in relation to intersex and trans. Mrs x People not identifying as trans doesn’t mean they follow those biological beliefs btw. I’m not trans. I recognise the difference between gender and sex. The difference between ‘biological male’ and ‘man’. These so called relevant statistics do not account for that. They can not be used to draw conclusions from because they don’t tell us anything about a person’s belief on gender. I'm sorry but the census didn't account for biology, it simply asked for those 'identifying as", no need to establish any evidence of transition. So it does take into account what you contest. Less than 0.5% of tge population identify as trans, this is not my figure it's the Census Office, if you don't agree with them I suggest you approach them and ask them to expand on their results. I have nothing against trans people at all, nothing but I feel I have to accept the math of the official bodies here until such time that they are proven wrong. If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x" What is the importance of biology here? Why is it so important to you? It's almost irrelevant to me. It's a bit like saying that most humans are right handed, therefore we shouldn't count left handed people as humans. The person I admired most of all in my life was beaten for being left handed, so I rather take exception to that, too. (And I'm right handed, for what it's worth) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x" The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is? Also silently hating myself for reading yet another of these threads I'm pretty sure I answered it above. If it's a small enough number, we can deny their rights. Nope.Nobody should have their rights denied, I cannot see anyone here even suggesting that. Can you quote any poster on here that's said that because that's abhorrent behaviour if true. Mrs x Conveniently, it has not happened *in this thread* However, I possess this novel technology called a memory which involves things I have read in this forum before. Why would you define something in a way that excludes a portion of the population, no matter how small? Would you define humans excluding red heads or people who develop skin cancer? If not, why would you define "man" or "woman" in the same wayu?" I'm not excluding anyone or anything. I'm not defining 'man' or 'woman' to exclude anyone. When have I said this? Why is this now about exclusion? Trans people are people just the same as everyone else. In fact if you look at the percentages and add them together bothe examples I gave add up to 100%, so everyone is included as a person. Like I said earlier I have nothing against anyone, nothing. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is? Also silently hating myself for reading yet another of these threads I'm pretty sure I answered it above. If it's a small enough number, we can deny their rights. Nope.Nobody should have their rights denied, I cannot see anyone here even suggesting that. Can you quote any poster on here that's said that because that's abhorrent behaviour if true. Mrs x Conveniently, it has not happened *in this thread* However, I possess this novel technology called a memory which involves things I have read in this forum before. Why would you define something in a way that excludes a portion of the population, no matter how small? Would you define humans excluding red heads or people who develop skin cancer? If not, why would you define "man" or "woman" in the same wayu?I'm not excluding anyone or anything. I'm not defining 'man' or 'woman' to exclude anyone. When have I said this? Why is this now about exclusion? Trans people are people just the same as everyone else. In fact if you look at the percentages and add them together bothe examples I gave add up to 100%, so everyone is included as a person. Like I said earlier I have nothing against anyone, nothing. Mrs x" In a thread about defining what a man is, you are bringing up the very small percentage of trans people. What purpose does that serve? Bear in mind that I possess, as noted earlier, a memory of posts written outside of this thread, and it is from this *evidence* that I am drawing an inference. You may counter that inference if there is a reason other than exclusion - by all means, explain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. " A certain proportion of the population think the earth is flat. I'm not sure why we give a fuck what the population thinks about anything important. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. A certain proportion of the population think the earth is flat. I'm not sure why we give a fuck what the population thinks about anything important." But also the census isn’t asking us what we think about sex/ gender. It’s asking for our own identification. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. " So take something else, totally separate from sex, gender and identity. Say the Census asked for those who are left handed. The Census then calculates that 5% of the population is left handed are you now saying its unreasonable to assume that the rest of the population is right handed? Yes I know there are issues with those not having two limbs and the data being skewed by people not giving the right answer and other variables but in the main the census will calculate the results accordingly. So putting these anomalous variables aside, if you have 5% of the population being one thing, the rest of the population will be 95% the other, given that in the main there is normally only 2 choices, left or right here. So when the Census says less than 0.5% of the population identifies as trans its a safe assumption that 99.5% don't. Even if there is errors within the system and the Census got there figures wrong by double ot would mean that 1% identified as trans and 99% didn't. Like I said if you don't like the data take it up with the Census office, give some definitive evidence which supports your claim rather than saying its not right. I'd be glad of the proof as I have no vested interest in their figures other than taking them at face value given they are supposedly the exerts in their field. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. A certain proportion of the population think the earth is flat. I'm not sure why we give a fuck what the population thinks about anything important. But also the census isn’t asking us what we think about sex/ gender. It’s asking for our own identification. " Indeed. It would be rather weird for the census to ask about that stuff. (Also it would change my answer. I'm cis, afab etc, but I accept that identity and body parts don't always match up, and I support people in getting what they need to live their best lives) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. A certain proportion of the population think the earth is flat. I'm not sure why we give a fuck what the population thinks about anything important. But also the census isn’t asking us what we think about sex/ gender. It’s asking for our own identification. " I never ever said it did ask about our thoughts, I also stated the Census recorded how many identified as trans. Or thoughts on the matter for the purposes of tge Census would seem irrelevant but maybe I'm incorrect and it's vital important , statistically speaking. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. So take something else, totally separate from sex, gender and identity. Say the Census asked for those who are left handed. The Census then calculates that 5% of the population is left handed are you now saying its unreasonable to assume that the rest of the population is right handed? Yes I know there are issues with those not having two limbs and the data being skewed by people not giving the right answer and other variables but in the main the census will calculate the results accordingly. So putting these anomalous variables aside, if you have 5% of the population being one thing, the rest of the population will be 95% the other, given that in the main there is normally only 2 choices, left or right here. So when the Census says less than 0.5% of the population identifies as trans its a safe assumption that 99.5% don't. Even if there is errors within the system and the Census got there figures wrong by double ot would mean that 1% identified as trans and 99% didn't. Like I said if you don't like the data take it up with the Census office, give some definitive evidence which supports your claim rather than saying its not right. I'd be glad of the proof as I have no vested interest in their figures other than taking them at face value given they are supposedly the exerts in their field. Mrs x" You said ‘when another poster stated that he puts his beliefs in biology and science then from a mathematical perspective his argument is quite strong, given that between 97% and 99% of the world's population follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc.’ what do you mean ‘follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc’ and how does it answer the question it is responding to ‘Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is?’ (To the thread) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. So take something else, totally separate from sex, gender and identity. Say the Census asked for those who are left handed. The Census then calculates that 5% of the population is left handed are you now saying its unreasonable to assume that the rest of the population is right handed? Yes I know there are issues with those not having two limbs and the data being skewed by people not giving the right answer and other variables but in the main the census will calculate the results accordingly. So putting these anomalous variables aside, if you have 5% of the population being one thing, the rest of the population will be 95% the other, given that in the main there is normally only 2 choices, left or right here. So when the Census says less than 0.5% of the population identifies as trans its a safe assumption that 99.5% don't. Even if there is errors within the system and the Census got there figures wrong by double ot would mean that 1% identified as trans and 99% didn't. Like I said if you don't like the data take it up with the Census office, give some definitive evidence which supports your claim rather than saying its not right. I'd be glad of the proof as I have no vested interest in their figures other than taking them at face value given they are supposedly the exerts in their field. Mrs x You said ‘when another poster stated that he puts his beliefs in biology and science then from a mathematical perspective his argument is quite strong, given that between 97% and 99% of the world's population follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc.’ what do you mean ‘follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc’ and how does it answer the question it is responding to ‘Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is?’ (To the thread) " We could swap out red headedness, skin cancer, left handedness here. The census (if it recorded it) would record most of us as being not red headed, not having skin cancer, and not being left handed. Are these people not people? Or do these people not have hair, skin, or hands? Biology is biology. A majority of people do not have red hair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. So take something else, totally separate from sex, gender and identity. Say the Census asked for those who are left handed. The Census then calculates that 5% of the population is left handed are you now saying its unreasonable to assume that the rest of the population is right handed? Yes I know there are issues with those not having two limbs and the data being skewed by people not giving the right answer and other variables but in the main the census will calculate the results accordingly. So putting these anomalous variables aside, if you have 5% of the population being one thing, the rest of the population will be 95% the other, given that in the main there is normally only 2 choices, left or right here. So when the Census says less than 0.5% of the population identifies as trans its a safe assumption that 99.5% don't. Even if there is errors within the system and the Census got there figures wrong by double ot would mean that 1% identified as trans and 99% didn't. Like I said if you don't like the data take it up with the Census office, give some definitive evidence which supports your claim rather than saying its not right. I'd be glad of the proof as I have no vested interest in their figures other than taking them at face value given they are supposedly the exerts in their field. Mrs x You said ‘when another poster stated that he puts his beliefs in biology and science then from a mathematical perspective his argument is quite strong, given that between 97% and 99% of the world's population follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc.’ what do you mean ‘follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc’ and how does it answer the question it is responding to ‘Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is?’ (To the thread) We could swap out red headedness, skin cancer, left handedness here. The census (if it recorded it) would record most of us as being not red headed, not having skin cancer, and not being left handed. Are these people not people? Or do these people not have hair, skin, or hands? Biology is biology. A majority of people do not have red hair." Idk I think I might be missing something here. Genuinely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. A certain proportion of the population think the earth is flat. I'm not sure why we give a fuck what the population thinks about anything important. But also the census isn’t asking us what we think about sex/ gender. It’s asking for our own identification. Indeed. It would be rather weird for the census to ask about that stuff. (Also it would change my answer. I'm cis, afab etc, but I accept that identity and body parts don't always match up, and I support people in getting what they need to live their best lives)" Weird or not, they asked this voluntary question and recieved over 94% engagement. It was from these figures that they extrapolated their findings. Like I said before I have nothing which would make me not believe the findings. The question was criticised when the findings were published. They said it was the first time such a thing was asked, the answering of the question may have been difficult for some etc. I understand some of this. I'm bisexuality but if asked I may not, and have not answered this as I don't see the relevance this has to most parts of my everyday life. However with the large take up rate 94% and over 93.5% saying they did not identify as anything other than the gender assigned at birth it would appear quite conclusive. I'd also like to point out that I've made a mistake when saying only 0.5% of the population identify as trans. It was the 0.5% from the 94% that answered the question who identified as trans, and the 93.5%, of the 94%, who didn't. There were also those, nearly 200,000, like me, who didn't answer the questions but the number of responses given provides for conclusive evidence. I too believe that everyone should be assisted to live their best possible lives. This means helping trans people achieve their desires to have the ability to live the life they identify as. I'm just quoting other people's statistics that's all. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. A certain proportion of the population think the earth is flat. I'm not sure why we give a fuck what the population thinks about anything important. But also the census isn’t asking us what we think about sex/ gender. It’s asking for our own identification. Indeed. It would be rather weird for the census to ask about that stuff. (Also it would change my answer. I'm cis, afab etc, but I accept that identity and body parts don't always match up, and I support people in getting what they need to live their best lives)Weird or not, they asked this voluntary question and recieved over 94% engagement. It was from these figures that they extrapolated their findings. Like I said before I have nothing which would make me not believe the findings. The question was criticised when the findings were published. They said it was the first time such a thing was asked, the answering of the question may have been difficult for some etc. I understand some of this. I'm bisexuality but if asked I may not, and have not answered this as I don't see the relevance this has to most parts of my everyday life. However with the large take up rate 94% and over 93.5% saying they did not identify as anything other than the gender assigned at birth it would appear quite conclusive. I'd also like to point out that I've made a mistake when saying only 0.5% of the population identify as trans. It was the 0.5% from the 94% that answered the question who identified as trans, and the 93.5%, of the 94%, who didn't. There were also those, nearly 200,000, like me, who didn't answer the questions but the number of responses given provides for conclusive evidence. I too believe that everyone should be assisted to live their best possible lives. This means helping trans people achieve their desires to have the ability to live the life they identify as. I'm just quoting other people's statistics that's all. Mrs x" I'm still confused as to what relevance this has to the thread. I have blue eyes. The overwhelming majority of people in the world do not have blue eyes. Do I get to identify as having eyes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. So take something else, totally separate from sex, gender and identity. Say the Census asked for those who are left handed. The Census then calculates that 5% of the population is left handed are you now saying its unreasonable to assume that the rest of the population is right handed? Yes I know there are issues with those not having two limbs and the data being skewed by people not giving the right answer and other variables but in the main the census will calculate the results accordingly. So putting these anomalous variables aside, if you have 5% of the population being one thing, the rest of the population will be 95% the other, given that in the main there is normally only 2 choices, left or right here. So when the Census says less than 0.5% of the population identifies as trans its a safe assumption that 99.5% don't. Even if there is errors within the system and the Census got there figures wrong by double ot would mean that 1% identified as trans and 99% didn't. Like I said if you don't like the data take it up with the Census office, give some definitive evidence which supports your claim rather than saying its not right. I'd be glad of the proof as I have no vested interest in their figures other than taking them at face value given they are supposedly the exerts in their field. Mrs x You said ‘when another poster stated that he puts his beliefs in biology and science then from a mathematical perspective his argument is quite strong, given that between 97% and 99% of the world's population follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc.’ what do you mean ‘follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc’ and how does it answer the question it is responding to ‘Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is?’ (To the thread) We could swap out red headedness, skin cancer, left handedness here. The census (if it recorded it) would record most of us as being not red headed, not having skin cancer, and not being left handed. Are these people not people? Or do these people not have hair, skin, or hands? Biology is biology. A majority of people do not have red hair." Why parenthesis 'if they recorded it'. It's very insulting and intimates I might not be telling the truth. Look it up, they did ask the question about gender and whether you identify as having the same gender you were assigned at birth. And why do you keep on with this exclusionary narrative. All people are people. The census deals with differences, it records age, sex, gender identity now from 2021, location, income, wealth it goes on and on. All these different things. But even though it records all these differences it does ask, and neither do I, are you a person? The reason it doesn't ask is because that's the one thong we all are and doesn't need asking, we are all people. So please stop saying thing like, if they recorded it and the such and just go read it. Please stop trying to divide us as I agree we are all people, deserving of the same rights, opportunities and happiness as each other. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So .....while I was out in Liverpool getting piss wet through in the rain ....... What definition did you come up with for a man ?" The person you ask to fill out your census form I think | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm still confused as to what relevance this has to the thread. I have blue eyes. The overwhelming majority of people in the world do not have blue eyes. Do I get to identify as having eyes?" Sorry swing, you're forever part of the eyeless demographic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So .....while I was out in Liverpool getting piss wet through in the rain ....... What definition did you come up with for a man ?" He has some coloured eyes… probably | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. A certain proportion of the population think the earth is flat. I'm not sure why we give a fuck what the population thinks about anything important. But also the census isn’t asking us what we think about sex/ gender. It’s asking for our own identification. Indeed. It would be rather weird for the census to ask about that stuff. (Also it would change my answer. I'm cis, afab etc, but I accept that identity and body parts don't always match up, and I support people in getting what they need to live their best lives)Weird or not, they asked this voluntary question and recieved over 94% engagement. It was from these figures that they extrapolated their findings. Like I said before I have nothing which would make me not believe the findings. The question was criticised when the findings were published. They said it was the first time such a thing was asked, the answering of the question may have been difficult for some etc. I understand some of this. I'm bisexuality but if asked I may not, and have not answered this as I don't see the relevance this has to most parts of my everyday life. However with the large take up rate 94% and over 93.5% saying they did not identify as anything other than the gender assigned at birth it would appear quite conclusive. I'd also like to point out that I've made a mistake when saying only 0.5% of the population identify as trans. It was the 0.5% from the 94% that answered the question who identified as trans, and the 93.5%, of the 94%, who didn't. There were also those, nearly 200,000, like me, who didn't answer the questions but the number of responses given provides for conclusive evidence. I too believe that everyone should be assisted to live their best possible lives. This means helping trans people achieve their desires to have the ability to live the life they identify as. I'm just quoting other people's statistics that's all. Mrs x I'm still confused as to what relevance this has to the thread. I have blue eyes. The overwhelming majority of people in the world do not have blue eyes. Do I get to identify as having eyes?" It's relevant in that a huge majority of the population believes a man is defined upon the biological definitions that have been used previously. Nobody is asking you to believe this but when asked they were the findings that came back. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you have evidence to support what you are saying in regards to the flaws withing the 2022 Census I'd like to see it and maybe update my own view on it. Mrs x The most obvious flaw here is not with the census. I’m pointing out that there would be and is a clear flaw in census data being used to try and explain that most of the population agree with biology’s definition of gender. Because the census does NOT in any way tell us that nor does it provide data that we can infer that from. So take something else, totally separate from sex, gender and identity. Say the Census asked for those who are left handed. The Census then calculates that 5% of the population is left handed are you now saying its unreasonable to assume that the rest of the population is right handed? Yes I know there are issues with those not having two limbs and the data being skewed by people not giving the right answer and other variables but in the main the census will calculate the results accordingly. So putting these anomalous variables aside, if you have 5% of the population being one thing, the rest of the population will be 95% the other, given that in the main there is normally only 2 choices, left or right here. So when the Census says less than 0.5% of the population identifies as trans its a safe assumption that 99.5% don't. Even if there is errors within the system and the Census got there figures wrong by double ot would mean that 1% identified as trans and 99% didn't. Like I said if you don't like the data take it up with the Census office, give some definitive evidence which supports your claim rather than saying its not right. I'd be glad of the proof as I have no vested interest in their figures other than taking them at face value given they are supposedly the exerts in their field. Mrs x You said ‘when another poster stated that he puts his beliefs in biology and science then from a mathematical perspective his argument is quite strong, given that between 97% and 99% of the world's population follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc.’ what do you mean ‘follows the basic biological principles relating to chromosomes, genitalia etc’ and how does it answer the question it is responding to ‘Just wondering what the relevance of the amount of people is?’ (To the thread) We could swap out red headedness, skin cancer, left handedness here. The census (if it recorded it) would record most of us as being not red headed, not having skin cancer, and not being left handed. Are these people not people? Or do these people not have hair, skin, or hands? Biology is biology. A majority of people do not have red hair.Why parenthesis 'if they recorded it'. It's very insulting and intimates I might not be telling the truth. Look it up, they did ask the question about gender and whether you identify as having the same gender you were assigned at birth. And why do you keep on with this exclusionary narrative. All people are people. The census deals with differences, it records age, sex, gender identity now from 2021, location, income, wealth it goes on and on. All these different things. But even though it records all these differences it does ask, and neither do I, are you a person? The reason it doesn't ask is because that's the one thong we all are and doesn't need asking, we are all people. So please stop saying thing like, if they recorded it and the such and just go read it. Please stop trying to divide us as I agree we are all people, deserving of the same rights, opportunities and happiness as each other. Mrs x" I'm hoping capital letters will help. IF the census recorded hair colour THEN red hair would be a tiny minority. BECAUSE hair colour is not in the census I used BRACKETS to identify a HYPOTHETICAL. I'm not excluding anyone from anything. I'm trying to work out what on earth the census has to do with creating an all encompassing identity. IF we form a definition on the basis of 90+% of the population, THEN we stand to EXCLUDE 10% of the population. I seek a definition that includes 100% of the population. Otherwise a definition is unnhelpful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm still confused as to what relevance this has to the thread. I have blue eyes. The overwhelming majority of people in the world do not have blue eyes. Do I get to identify as having eyes?It's relevant in that a huge majority of the population believes a man is defined upon the biological definitions that have been used previously. Nobody is asking you to believe this but when asked they were the findings that came back. Mrs x" That's what I thought you were saying. Because the majority of people identify as cisgender*, you think that should reflect on the definition. The vast majority of people in the United Kingdom have brown eyes. Does this make me, with blue eyes, less of a person, or less able to identify as a person? * for the purposes of this exercise, cisgender also encompasses "I refuse to accept a common term I am justawoman or justaman because I am a special snowflake" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's a good start. I'm assuming they are on his face ? Ahhhhhhhh he has a face !" Didn’t someone on here put them on his dick? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Joe Manganiello is the answer 👍🏻 " Is that in Matt or Gloss ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you two realise that there is no bandwidth left on t'internet ?" 
I'm just seeking to identify if we can define things based on the majority, rather than the usual way of defining things that seeks to encompass the entire category seeking to be defined. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Joe Manganiello is the answer 👍🏻 Is that in Matt or Gloss ?" It’s definitely matt and oozing testosterone. My goodness - he is so manly that to merely look upon him one will instantly grow a beard 👍🏻 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you two realise that there is no bandwidth left on t'internet ?
I'm just seeking to identify if we can define things based on the majority, rather than the usual way of defining things that seeks to encompass the entire category seeking to be defined."Oh I know! I'm sipping tea n reading it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Balls, penis, sperm, XY chromosomes "and no brain or heart Dorothy ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you two realise that there is no bandwidth left on t'internet ?
I'm just seeking to identify if we can define things based on the majority, rather than the usual way of defining things that seeks to encompass the entire category seeking to be defined."Over 90% is the majority, isn't it? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you two realise that there is no bandwidth left on t'internet ?
I'm just seeking to identify if we can define things based on the majority, rather than the usual way of defining things that seeks to encompass the entire category seeking to be defined.
Oh I know! I'm sipping tea n reading it
"To me it feels a bit like the Australian constitution pre the 1970s. That time where a part of the homo sapien population was legally flora and fauna. Or the first law passed in Australia, where you could come into the country if you passed an English test (if you came from France, Germany, the Netherlands, or Ireland, you would be given a test in your native language and allowed in. If from another country, they would find a language that they would call English with which to flunk you. I learned at school about one Indian scholar being flunked on medieval Welsh, because he spoke all the languages of the non-savages) (and people say I only shit on the UK ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you two realise that there is no bandwidth left on t'internet ?
I'm just seeking to identify if we can define things based on the majority, rather than the usual way of defining things that seeks to encompass the entire category seeking to be defined.Over 90% is the majority, isn't it?
Mrs x"Yes. By that way of doing things, we should define redheads as non-human. Or me, with blue eyes. Only people with brown hair, brown eyes, and dark skin are human. They are the majority. This is where you're leading this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Joe Manganiello is the answer 👍🏻 Is that in Matt or Gloss ?" Matt Gloss?…. Wasnt he in a boy band in the 80s? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Joe Manganiello is the answer 👍🏻 Is that in Matt or Gloss ? Matt Gloss?…. Wasnt he in a boy band in the 80s?" You bloody idiot Woody. That was my exact thought when I typed it n I thought some soft sod will mention bros ....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you two realise that there is no bandwidth left on t'internet ?
I'm just seeking to identify if we can define things based on the majority, rather than the usual way of defining things that seeks to encompass the entire category seeking to be defined.Over 90% is the majority, isn't it?
Mrs x
Yes.
By that way of doing things, we should define redheads as non-human.
Or me, with blue eyes.
Only people with brown hair, brown eyes, and dark skin are human. They are the majority. This is where you're leading this."No it's not, the Census asked about what people identified as. It didn't ask whether those who identified differently that they should be excluded from humanity. So all I'm saying it that for the majority, those born as a female identified as a woman still and those born as a male identified as a man. If you are saying that this somehow excludes those who no lo ger identify with their birth identity that's your opinion. The census never asked that. Like I said before everyone is a person and is included as part of the human race. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you two realise that there is no bandwidth left on t'internet ?
I'm just seeking to identify if we can define things based on the majority, rather than the usual way of defining things that seeks to encompass the entire category seeking to be defined.Over 90% is the majority, isn't it?
Mrs x
Yes.
By that way of doing things, we should define redheads as non-human.
Or me, with blue eyes.
Only people with brown hair, brown eyes, and dark skin are human. They are the majority. This is where you're leading this.No it's not, the Census asked about what people identified as. It didn't ask whether those who identified differently that they should be excluded from humanity.
So all I'm saying it that for the majority, those born as a female identified as a woman still and those born as a male identified as a man.
If you are saying that this somehow excludes those who no lo ger identify with their birth identity that's your opinion. The census never asked that. Like I said before everyone is a person and is included as part of the human race.
Mrs x"Then why is it relevant to the definition of a man? The overwhelming majority of men have brown eyes. Are my father, brother, most of my male cousins, and grandfathers goats? Or does the definition of men also stretch to include conditions not in the majority? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you two realise that there is no bandwidth left on t'internet ?
I'm just seeking to identify if we can define things based on the majority, rather than the usual way of defining things that seeks to encompass the entire category seeking to be defined.Over 90% is the majority, isn't it?
Mrs x
Yes.
By that way of doing things, we should define redheads as non-human.
Or me, with blue eyes.
Only people with brown hair, brown eyes, and dark skin are human. They are the majority. This is where you're leading this.No it's not, the Census asked about what people identified as. It didn't ask whether those who identified differently that they should be excluded from humanity.
So all I'm saying it that for the majority, those born as a female identified as a woman still and those born as a male identified as a man.
If you are saying that this somehow excludes those who no lo ger identify with their birth identity that's your opinion. The census never asked that. Like I said before everyone is a person and is included as part of the human race.
Mrs x"so what relevance does this have to the thread? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you two realise that there is no bandwidth left on t'internet ?
I'm just seeking to identify if we can define things based on the majority, rather than the usual way of defining things that seeks to encompass the entire category seeking to be defined.Over 90% is the majority, isn't it?
Mrs x
Yes.
By that way of doing things, we should define redheads as non-human.
Or me, with blue eyes.
Only people with brown hair, brown eyes, and dark skin are human. They are the majority. This is where you're leading this.No it's not, the Census asked about what people identified as. It didn't ask whether those who identified differently that they should be excluded from humanity.
So all I'm saying it that for the majority, those born as a female identified as a woman still and those born as a male identified as a man.
If you are saying that this somehow excludes those who no lo ger identify with their birth identity that's your opinion. The census never asked that. Like I said before everyone is a person and is included as part of the human race.
Mrs x
Then why is it relevant to the definition of a man?
The overwhelming majority of men have brown eyes.
Are my father, brother, most of my male cousins, and grandfathers goats?
Or does the definition of men also stretch to include conditions not in the majority?"Because they identified as a man and still do. If they identified as a trans man they gave a different answer. Are you saying that those who only agree with your opinion, have a valid opinion? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you two realise that there is no bandwidth left on t'internet ?
I'm just seeking to identify if we can define things based on the majority, rather than the usual way of defining things that seeks to encompass the entire category seeking to be defined.Over 90% is the majority, isn't it?
Mrs x
Yes.
By that way of doing things, we should define redheads as non-human.
Or me, with blue eyes.
Only people with brown hair, brown eyes, and dark skin are human. They are the majority. This is where you're leading this.No it's not, the Census asked about what people identified as. It didn't ask whether those who identified differently that they should be excluded from humanity.
So all I'm saying it that for the majority, those born as a female identified as a woman still and those born as a male identified as a man.
If you are saying that this somehow excludes those who no lo ger identify with their birth identity that's your opinion. The census never asked that. Like I said before everyone is a person and is included as part of the human race.
Mrs x so what relevance does this have to the thread?"What is a human? According to World Population Review, at 2024, over 61% of the world's population lives in Asia. Surely that has a reflection on how we should define humans, yes? I'm not excluding anyone. I'm just saying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Joe Manganiello is the answer 👍🏻 Is that in Matt or Gloss ? Matt Gloss?…. Wasnt he in a boy band in the 80s? You bloody idiot Woody. That was my exact thought when I typed it n I thought some soft sod will mention bros .... " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you two realise that there is no bandwidth left on t'internet ?
I'm just seeking to identify if we can define things based on the majority, rather than the usual way of defining things that seeks to encompass the entire category seeking to be defined.Over 90% is the majority, isn't it?
Mrs x
Yes.
By that way of doing things, we should define redheads as non-human.
Or me, with blue eyes.
Only people with brown hair, brown eyes, and dark skin are human. They are the majority. This is where you're leading this.No it's not, the Census asked about what people identified as. It didn't ask whether those who identified differently that they should be excluded from humanity.
So all I'm saying it that for the majority, those born as a female identified as a woman still and those born as a male identified as a man.
If you are saying that this somehow excludes those who no lo ger identify with their birth identity that's your opinion. The census never asked that. Like I said before everyone is a person and is included as part of the human race.
Mrs x
Then why is it relevant to the definition of a man?
The overwhelming majority of men have brown eyes.
Are my father, brother, most of my male cousins, and grandfathers goats?
Or does the definition of men also stretch to include conditions not in the majority?Because they identified as a man and still do.
If they identified as a trans man they gave a different answer.
Are you saying that those who only agree with your opinion, have a valid opinion?
Mrs x"No, I'm saying that you are saying that the majority position should reflect the overall definition. I was born in Australia. The overwhelming majority of humans were not born in Australia. They do not identify as Australian or having been born in Australia. Their birth certificates, passports, school records, etc, will show that they were not born in Australia. Am I any less human? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you two realise that there is no bandwidth left on t'internet ?
I'm just seeking to identify if we can define things based on the majority, rather than the usual way of defining things that seeks to encompass the entire category seeking to be defined.Over 90% is the majority, isn't it?
Mrs x
Yes.
By that way of doing things, we should define redheads as non-human.
Or me, with blue eyes.
Only people with brown hair, brown eyes, and dark skin are human. They are the majority. This is where you're leading this.No it's not, the Census asked about what people identified as. It didn't ask whether those who identified differently that they should be excluded from humanity.
So all I'm saying it that for the majority, those born as a female identified as a woman still and those born as a male identified as a man.
If you are saying that this somehow excludes those who no lo ger identify with their birth identity that's your opinion. The census never asked that. Like I said before everyone is a person and is included as part of the human race.
Mrs x
Then why is it relevant to the definition of a man?
The overwhelming majority of men have brown eyes.
Are my father, brother, most of my male cousins, and grandfathers goats?
Or does the definition of men also stretch to include conditions not in the majority?Because they identified as a man and still do.
If they identified as a trans man they gave a different answer.
Are you saying that those who only agree with your opinion, have a valid opinion?
Mrs x
No, I'm saying that you are saying that the majority position should reflect the overall definition.
I was born in Australia. The overwhelming majority of humans were not born in Australia. They do not identify as Australian or having been born in Australia. Their birth certificates, passports, school records, etc, will show that they were not born in Australia.
Am I any less human?"Nice use of semantics, but you know that we, as a species we're all human before the establishment of borders and countries. They are a social construct to the betterment of the elitist class. But we've always been humans, we shall always be humans, evolution aside, whether in the majority or minority, no matter where we live or under whatever regime or society that currently exists. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No, I'm saying that you are saying that the majority position should reflect the overall definition. I was born in Australia. The overwhelming majority of humans were not born in Australia. They do not identify as Australian or having been born in Australia. Their birth certificates, passports, school records, etc, will show that they were not born in Australia. Am I any less human?Nice use of semantics, but you know that we, as a species we're all human before the establishment of borders and countries. They are a social construct to the betterment of the elitist class. But we've always been humans, we shall always be humans, evolution aside, whether in the majority or minority, no matter where we live or under whatever regime or society that currently exists. Mrs x " It's not semantics. It's an analogy. You have said earlier that you believe that the position of the majority should reflect upon the definition. If that is so, then many of my male relatives are not men or are less men, because they do not have brown eyes. Many or most of the people in this thread are not quite as human, because they do not live in Asia. Or you can explain what the point is of your statistic, rather than just saying no. If your implication is not that the majority should reflect the definition of the majority, then what? Was Barack Obama not the President of the United States because the majority who have held that position were Caucasian? Is Kamala Harris ineligible because all who have held the position so far have been men? (Is she not the Vice President because a woman has not held that position before?) Or is a definition written to include all possible forms of something? What is the relevance of the statistic you are quoting, to the definition of being a man, if I am still a human, you are still a human, and my grandfather is not a goat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Frank Grillo - he’s another manly man. If I were into men I’d clearly have a type 😍😜" 1. 50.25 % | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Someone who makes me feel like a woman 👩🏼 Sounds like you forgot the lyrics to Shanias big song. " I know them. I wasn't thinking of the song when I wrote my answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Someone who makes me feel like a woman 👩🏼 Sounds like you forgot the lyrics to Shanias big song. I know them. I wasn't thinking of the song when I wrote my answer." that was my first thought | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No, I'm saying that you are saying that the majority position should reflect the overall definition. I was born in Australia. The overwhelming majority of humans were not born in Australia. They do not identify as Australian or having been born in Australia. Their birth certificates, passports, school records, etc, will show that they were not born in Australia. Am I any less human?Nice use of semantics, but you know that we, as a species we're all human before the establishment of borders and countries. They are a social construct to the betterment of the elitist class. But we've always been humans, we shall always be humans, evolution aside, whether in the majority or minority, no matter where we live or under whatever regime or society that currently exists. Mrs x It's not semantics. It's an analogy. You have said earlier that you believe that the position of the majority should reflect upon the definition. If that is so, then many of my male relatives are not men or are less men, because they do not have brown eyes. Many or most of the people in this thread are not quite as human, because they do not live in Asia. Or you can explain what the point is of your statistic, rather than just saying no. If your implication is not that the majority should reflect the definition of the majority, then what? Was Barack Obama not the President of the United States because the majority who have held that position were Caucasian? Is Kamala Harris ineligible because all who have held the position so far have been men? (Is she not the Vice President because a woman has not held that position before?) Or is a definition written to include all possible forms of something? What is the relevance of the statistic you are quoting, to the definition of being a man, if I am still a human, you are still a human, and my grandfather is not a goat?" I never said that. What I said is that in regards to the question asked in the Census that an overwhelming majority said they still identified as the birth identity. I haven't even given a definition of what a man is. So those who answer this, in this manner still identify as either male or female. If they didn't, they identified as a trans person. So as a male, that hasn't under gone any transition or is not thinking about such transition, it's a fair assumption to believe that they were born with male biology. I know there's a small percentage were this is not the case but the 'norms', not to be confused with normal, of a biological male would exist. So chromosomes, genitalia etc would be typically male. They would grow through puberty and after this they would be a man. So for the majority of those asked, in their millions, this maybe, note how I'm not saying definitely, is what they would think a man is. If there was any element of having to trans to become a man then they would possibly have answered the question differently and identify as a 'trans man. So I read the statistics as the vast majority of the adults in the UK think a man is a biological male, who achieves maturity, after going through puberty becoming capable of siring children. I'm not saying trans people aren't people or humans just because they are a minority group, just like I would say disabled people ate not people or humans either. Everyone should be included not excluded. On this occasion I'm probably going with the definition of a man or woman being a biological male or female that has reached maturity, after going through puberty and is reproductivey able. I believe that in the absence of any transitional element that this is the definition I prefer. Trans men and woman are men and woman but they are trans men and trans woman. This is not excluding anyone but just an accurate description of the stage of their identity they are currently at. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No, I'm saying that you are saying that the majority position should reflect the overall definition. I was born in Australia. The overwhelming majority of humans were not born in Australia. They do not identify as Australian or having been born in Australia. Their birth certificates, passports, school records, etc, will show that they were not born in Australia. Am I any less human?Nice use of semantics, but you know that we, as a species we're all human before the establishment of borders and countries. They are a social construct to the betterment of the elitist class. But we've always been humans, we shall always be humans, evolution aside, whether in the majority or minority, no matter where we live or under whatever regime or society that currently exists. Mrs x It's not semantics. It's an analogy. You have said earlier that you believe that the position of the majority should reflect upon the definition. If that is so, then many of my male relatives are not men or are less men, because they do not have brown eyes. Many or most of the people in this thread are not quite as human, because they do not live in Asia. Or you can explain what the point is of your statistic, rather than just saying no. If your implication is not that the majority should reflect the definition of the majority, then what? Was Barack Obama not the President of the United States because the majority who have held that position were Caucasian? Is Kamala Harris ineligible because all who have held the position so far have been men? (Is she not the Vice President because a woman has not held that position before?) Or is a definition written to include all possible forms of something? What is the relevance of the statistic you are quoting, to the definition of being a man, if I am still a human, you are still a human, and my grandfather is not a goat?I never said that. What I said is that in regards to the question asked in the Census that an overwhelming majority said they still identified as the birth identity. I haven't even given a definition of what a man is. So those who answer this, in this manner still identify as either male or female. If they didn't, they identified as a trans person. So as a male, that hasn't under gone any transition or is not thinking about such transition, it's a fair assumption to believe that they were born with male biology. I know there's a small percentage were this is not the case but the 'norms', not to be confused with normal, of a biological male would exist. So chromosomes, genitalia etc would be typically male. They would grow through puberty and after this they would be a man. So for the majority of those asked, in their millions, this maybe, note how I'm not saying definitely, is what they would think a man is. If there was any element of having to trans to become a man then they would possibly have answered the question differently and identify as a 'trans man. So I read the statistics as the vast majority of the adults in the UK think a man is a biological male, who achieves maturity, after going through puberty becoming capable of siring children. I'm not saying trans people aren't people or humans just because they are a minority group, just like I would say disabled people ate not people or humans either. Everyone should be included not excluded. On this occasion I'm probably going with the definition of a man or woman being a biological male or female that has reached maturity, after going through puberty and is reproductivey able. I believe that in the absence of any transitional element that this is the definition I prefer. Trans men and woman are men and woman but they are trans men and trans woman. This is not excluding anyone but just an accurate description of the stage of their identity they are currently at. Mrs x" Ok, you're drawing a really weird conclusion from the data. I was assigned female at birth. I was raised as a girl. I believe myself to be a woman. Through various medical tests, surgeries, etc, I have the equipment that indicates I probably have XX chromosomes. That doesn't mean that I don't think trans women are women, or that intersex people can identify in any way they see fit. The majority of people in the world identify as Asian. Does that mean that they would think that everyone has to identify as Asian? Or is that absolutely ridiculous? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No, I'm saying that you are saying that the majority position should reflect the overall definition. I was born in Australia. The overwhelming majority of humans were not born in Australia. They do not identify as Australian or having been born in Australia. Their birth certificates, passports, school records, etc, will show that they were not born in Australia. Am I any less human?Nice use of semantics, but you know that we, as a species we're all human before the establishment of borders and countries. They are a social construct to the betterment of the elitist class. But we've always been humans, we shall always be humans, evolution aside, whether in the majority or minority, no matter where we live or under whatever regime or society that currently exists. Mrs x It's not semantics. It's an analogy. You have said earlier that you believe that the position of the majority should reflect upon the definition. If that is so, then many of my male relatives are not men or are less men, because they do not have brown eyes. Many or most of the people in this thread are not quite as human, because they do not live in Asia. Or you can explain what the point is of your statistic, rather than just saying no. If your implication is not that the majority should reflect the definition of the majority, then what? Was Barack Obama not the President of the United States because the majority who have held that position were Caucasian? Is Kamala Harris ineligible because all who have held the position so far have been men? (Is she not the Vice President because a woman has not held that position before?) Or is a definition written to include all possible forms of something? What is the relevance of the statistic you are quoting, to the definition of being a man, if I am still a human, you are still a human, and my grandfather is not a goat?I never said that. What I said is that in regards to the question asked in the Census that an overwhelming majority said they still identified as the birth identity. I haven't even given a definition of what a man is. So those who answer this, in this manner still identify as either male or female. If they didn't, they identified as a trans person. So as a male, that hasn't under gone any transition or is not thinking about such transition, it's a fair assumption to believe that they were born with male biology. I know there's a small percentage were this is not the case but the 'norms', not to be confused with normal, of a biological male would exist. So chromosomes, genitalia etc would be typically male. They would grow through puberty and after this they would be a man. So for the majority of those asked, in their millions, this maybe, note how I'm not saying definitely, is what they would think a man is. If there was any element of having to trans to become a man then they would possibly have answered the question differently and identify as a 'trans man. So I read the statistics as the vast majority of the adults in the UK think a man is a biological male, who achieves maturity, after going through puberty becoming capable of siring children. I'm not saying trans people aren't people or humans just because they are a minority group, just like I would say disabled people ate not people or humans either. Everyone should be included not excluded. On this occasion I'm probably going with the definition of a man or woman being a biological male or female that has reached maturity, after going through puberty and is reproductivey able. I believe that in the absence of any transitional element that this is the definition I prefer. Trans men and woman are men and woman but they are trans men and trans woman. This is not excluding anyone but just an accurate description of the stage of their identity they are currently at. Mrs x Ok, you're drawing a really weird conclusion from the data. I was assigned female at birth. I was raised as a girl. I believe myself to be a woman. Through various medical tests, surgeries, etc, I have the equipment that indicates I probably have XX chromosomes. That doesn't mean that I don't think trans women are women, or that intersex people can identify in any way they see fit. The majority of people in the world identify as Asian. Does that mean that they would think that everyone has to identify as Asian? Or is that absolutely ridiculous?" Do you believe that I am saying that a majority decision rules here? Because I'm not. I'm simply saying that a group of individuals were asked a question and gave an answer. This answer is in no way going to be definitive. It's not going to make up the definition of anything. It was simply a question to how people identify currently. From the answers to this question conclusions can be made. I've said what I've believe was a reason for why certain answers were given. I've pointed out that I tend to air on the reasons I have given. I've not said I'm right, or tge majority is right. Like I said its not going to change anything. You can carry on with stating that the majority isn't right, because here there is no right or wrong. It's just an opinion but you seem to think that millions of similar answers cannot be correct because they don't match yours. Maybe, knowing that the answers have no impact on anything, you could put some of your obvious energy into asking yourselves why these millions answered the way they did. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No, I'm saying that you are saying that the majority position should reflect the overall definition. I was born in Australia. The overwhelming majority of humans were not born in Australia. They do not identify as Australian or having been born in Australia. Their birth certificates, passports, school records, etc, will show that they were not born in Australia. Am I any less human?Nice use of semantics, but you know that we, as a species we're all human before the establishment of borders and countries. They are a social construct to the betterment of the elitist class. But we've always been humans, we shall always be humans, evolution aside, whether in the majority or minority, no matter where we live or under whatever regime or society that currently exists. Mrs x It's not semantics. It's an analogy. You have said earlier that you believe that the position of the majority should reflect upon the definition. If that is so, then many of my male relatives are not men or are less men, because they do not have brown eyes. Many or most of the people in this thread are not quite as human, because they do not live in Asia. Or you can explain what the point is of your statistic, rather than just saying no. If your implication is not that the majority should reflect the definition of the majority, then what? Was Barack Obama not the President of the United States because the majority who have held that position were Caucasian? Is Kamala Harris ineligible because all who have held the position so far have been men? (Is she not the Vice President because a woman has not held that position before?) Or is a definition written to include all possible forms of something? What is the relevance of the statistic you are quoting, to the definition of being a man, if I am still a human, you are still a human, and my grandfather is not a goat?I never said that. What I said is that in regards to the question asked in the Census that an overwhelming majority said they still identified as the birth identity. I haven't even given a definition of what a man is. So those who answer this, in this manner still identify as either male or female. If they didn't, they identified as a trans person. So as a male, that hasn't under gone any transition or is not thinking about such transition, it's a fair assumption to believe that they were born with male biology. I know there's a small percentage were this is not the case but the 'norms', not to be confused with normal, of a biological male would exist. So chromosomes, genitalia etc would be typically male. They would grow through puberty and after this they would be a man. So for the majority of those asked, in their millions, this maybe, note how I'm not saying definitely, is what they would think a man is. If there was any element of having to trans to become a man then they would possibly have answered the question differently and identify as a 'trans man. So I read the statistics as the vast majority of the adults in the UK think a man is a biological male, who achieves maturity, after going through puberty becoming capable of siring children. I'm not saying trans people aren't people or humans just because they are a minority group, just like I would say disabled people ate not people or humans either. Everyone should be included not excluded. On this occasion I'm probably going with the definition of a man or woman being a biological male or female that has reached maturity, after going through puberty and is reproductivey able. I believe that in the absence of any transitional element that this is the definition I prefer. Trans men and woman are men and woman but they are trans men and trans woman. This is not excluding anyone but just an accurate description of the stage of their identity they are currently at. Mrs x Ok, you're drawing a really weird conclusion from the data. I was assigned female at birth. I was raised as a girl. I believe myself to be a woman. Through various medical tests, surgeries, etc, I have the equipment that indicates I probably have XX chromosomes. That doesn't mean that I don't think trans women are women, or that intersex people can identify in any way they see fit. The majority of people in the world identify as Asian. Does that mean that they would think that everyone has to identify as Asian? Or is that absolutely ridiculous?Do you believe that I am saying that a majority decision rules here? Because I'm not. I'm simply saying that a group of individuals were asked a question and gave an answer. This answer is in no way going to be definitive. It's not going to make up the definition of anything. It was simply a question to how people identify currently. From the answers to this question conclusions can be made. I've said what I've believe was a reason for why certain answers were given. I've pointed out that I tend to air on the reasons I have given. I've not said I'm right, or tge majority is right. Like I said its not going to change anything. You can carry on with stating that the majority isn't right, because here there is no right or wrong. It's just an opinion but you seem to think that millions of similar answers cannot be correct because they don't match yours. Maybe, knowing that the answers have no impact on anything, you could put some of your obvious energy into asking yourselves why these millions answered the way they did. Mrs x" The majority are identifying what THEY are. Not what they think everything is. I am an Australian of broadly English heritage, and I have identified as such on Australian censuses. That doesn't mean that I think, or am saying, that all Australians are of broadly English heritage. My answer is about me and me alone. Just as my answer about being cis does not reflect on what I think a woman is. I think a woman is an adult female who identifies as a woman, excluding anyone who thinks that cisgender is a slur. Anyone who thinks cisgender is a slur is neither male nor female, according to my belief, but is a homo sapien like creature called a justa. Does that mean that anyone who thinks cisgender is a slur is not a woman or a man, or that I have my own private beliefs that were not reflected on the census? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't even given a definition of what a man is. So those who answer this, in this manner still identify as either male or female. If they didn't, they identified as a trans person. So as a male, that hasn't under gone any transition or is not thinking about such transition, it's a fair assumption to believe that they were born with male biology. I know there's a small percentage were this is not the case but the 'norms', not to be confused with normal, of a biological male would exist. So chromosomes, genitalia etc would be typically male. They would grow through puberty and after this they would be a man. So for the majority of those asked, in their millions, this maybe, note how I'm not saying definitely, is what they would think a man is. If there was any element of having to trans to become a man then they would possibly have answered the question differently and identify as a 'trans man. So I read the statistics as the vast majority of the adults in the UK think a man is a biological male, who achieves maturity, after going through puberty becoming capable of siring children. I'm not saying trans people aren't people or humans just because they are a minority group, just like I would say disabled people ate not people or humans either. Everyone should be included not excluded. On this occasion I'm probably going with the definition of a man or woman being a biological male or female that has reached maturity, after going through puberty and is reproductivey able. I believe that in the absence of any transitional element that this is the definition I prefer. Trans men and woman are men and woman but they are trans men and trans woman. This is not excluding anyone but just an accurate description of the stage of their identity they are currently at. Mrs x" You cannot possibly infer this from the data you’re quoting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No, I'm saying that you are saying that the majority position should reflect the overall definition. I was born in Australia. The overwhelming majority of humans were not born in Australia. They do not identify as Australian or having been born in Australia. Their birth certificates, passports, school records, etc, will show that they were not born in Australia. Am I any less human?Nice use of semantics, but you know that we, as a species we're all human before the establishment of borders and countries. They are a social construct to the betterment of the elitist class. But we've always been humans, we shall always be humans, evolution aside, whether in the majority or minority, no matter where we live or under whatever regime or society that currently exists. Mrs x It's not semantics. It's an analogy. You have said earlier that you believe that the position of the majority should reflect upon the definition. If that is so, then many of my male relatives are not men or are less men, because they do not have brown eyes. Many or most of the people in this thread are not quite as human, because they do not live in Asia. Or you can explain what the point is of your statistic, rather than just saying no. If your implication is not that the majority should reflect the definition of the majority, then what? Was Barack Obama not the President of the United States because the majority who have held that position were Caucasian? Is Kamala Harris ineligible because all who have held the position so far have been men? (Is she not the Vice President because a woman has not held that position before?) Or is a definition written to include all possible forms of something? What is the relevance of the statistic you are quoting, to the definition of being a man, if I am still a human, you are still a human, and my grandfather is not a goat?I never said that. What I said is that in regards to the question asked in the Census that an overwhelming majority said they still identified as the birth identity. I haven't even given a definition of what a man is. So those who answer this, in this manner still identify as either male or female. If they didn't, they identified as a trans person. So as a male, that hasn't under gone any transition or is not thinking about such transition, it's a fair assumption to believe that they were born with male biology. I know there's a small percentage were this is not the case but the 'norms', not to be confused with normal, of a biological male would exist. So chromosomes, genitalia etc would be typically male. They would grow through puberty and after this they would be a man. So for the majority of those asked, in their millions, this maybe, note how I'm not saying definitely, is what they would think a man is. If there was any element of having to trans to become a man then they would possibly have answered the question differently and identify as a 'trans man. So I read the statistics as the vast majority of the adults in the UK think a man is a biological male, who achieves maturity, after going through puberty becoming capable of siring children. I'm not saying trans people aren't people or humans just because they are a minority group, just like I would say disabled people ate not people or humans either. Everyone should be included not excluded. On this occasion I'm probably going with the definition of a man or woman being a biological male or female that has reached maturity, after going through puberty and is reproductivey able. I believe that in the absence of any transitional element that this is the definition I prefer. Trans men and woman are men and woman but they are trans men and trans woman. This is not excluding anyone but just an accurate description of the stage of their identity they are currently at. Mrs x Ok, you're drawing a really weird conclusion from the data. I was assigned female at birth. I was raised as a girl. I believe myself to be a woman. Through various medical tests, surgeries, etc, I have the equipment that indicates I probably have XX chromosomes. That doesn't mean that I don't think trans women are women, or that intersex people can identify in any way they see fit. The majority of people in the world identify as Asian. Does that mean that they would think that everyone has to identify as Asian? Or is that absolutely ridiculous?Do you believe that I am saying that a majority decision rules here? Because I'm not. I'm simply saying that a group of individuals were asked a question and gave an answer. This answer is in no way going to be definitive. It's not going to make up the definition of anything. It was simply a question to how people identify currently. From the answers to this question conclusions can be made. I've said what I've believe was a reason for why certain answers were given. I've pointed out that I tend to air on the reasons I have given. I've not said I'm right, or tge majority is right. Like I said its not going to change anything. You can carry on with stating that the majority isn't right, because here there is no right or wrong. It's just an opinion but you seem to think that millions of similar answers cannot be correct because they don't match yours. Maybe, knowing that the answers have no impact on anything, you could put some of your obvious energy into asking yourselves why these millions answered the way they did. Mrs x The majority are identifying what THEY are. Not what they think everything is. I am an Australian of broadly English heritage, and I have identified as such on Australian censuses. That doesn't mean that I think, or am saying, that all Australians are of broadly English heritage. My answer is about me and me alone. Just as my answer about being cis does not reflect on what I think a woman is. I think a woman is an adult female who identifies as a woman, excluding anyone who thinks that cisgender is a slur. Anyone who thinks cisgender is a slur is neither male nor female, according to my belief, but is a homo sapien like creature called a justa. Does that mean that anyone who thinks cisgender is a slur is not a woman or a man, or that I have my own private beliefs that were not reflected on the census? " Again you are a little confused I am saying that everyone who took part in the Census answer individually. Millions answered a certain way, it's how they identify but yet you seem to have an issue with this. I don't know why. As I've said all the answers are irrelevant to the definition of a man and will not change anything. So that said you are entitled to your opinion and to give your answers but they to are irrelevant, will not change anything and using your phrasing they seem very 'weird" but feel free to voice them. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't even given a definition of what a man is. So those who answer this, in this manner still identify as either male or female. If they didn't, they identified as a trans person. So as a male, that hasn't under gone any transition or is not thinking about such transition, it's a fair assumption to believe that they were born with male biology. I know there's a small percentage were this is not the case but the 'norms', not to be confused with normal, of a biological male would exist. So chromosomes, genitalia etc would be typically male. They would grow through puberty and after this they would be a man. So for the majority of those asked, in their millions, this maybe, note how I'm not saying definitely, is what they would think a man is. If there was any element of having to trans to become a man then they would possibly have answered the question differently and identify as a 'trans man. So I read the statistics as the vast majority of the adults in the UK think a man is a biological male, who achieves maturity, after going through puberty becoming capable of siring children. I'm not saying trans people aren't people or humans just because they are a minority group, just like I would say disabled people ate not people or humans either. Everyone should be included not excluded. On this occasion I'm probably going with the definition of a man or woman being a biological male or female that has reached maturity, after going through puberty and is reproductivey able. I believe that in the absence of any transitional element that this is the definition I prefer. Trans men and woman are men and woman but they are trans men and trans woman. This is not excluding anyone but just an accurate description of the stage of their identity they are currently at. Mrs x You cannot possibly infer this from the data you’re quoting. " Yes, you said what I was trying to say much more concisely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't even given a definition of what a man is. So those who answer this, in this manner still identify as either male or female. If they didn't, they identified as a trans person. So as a male, that hasn't under gone any transition or is not thinking about such transition, it's a fair assumption to believe that they were born with male biology. I know there's a small percentage were this is not the case but the 'norms', not to be confused with normal, of a biological male would exist. So chromosomes, genitalia etc would be typically male. They would grow through puberty and after this they would be a man. So for the majority of those asked, in their millions, this maybe, note how I'm not saying definitely, is what they would think a man is. If there was any element of having to trans to become a man then they would possibly have answered the question differently and identify as a 'trans man. So I read the statistics as the vast majority of the adults in the UK think a man is a biological male, who achieves maturity, after going through puberty becoming capable of siring children. I'm not saying trans people aren't people or humans just because they are a minority group, just like I would say disabled people ate not people or humans either. Everyone should be included not excluded. On this occasion I'm probably going with the definition of a man or woman being a biological male or female that has reached maturity, after going through puberty and is reproductivey able. I believe that in the absence of any transitional element that this is the definition I prefer. Trans men and woman are men and woman but they are trans men and trans woman. This is not excluding anyone but just an accurate description of the stage of their identity they are currently at. Mrs x You cannot possibly infer this from the data you’re quoting. " Why not, how do you infer it? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again you are a little confused I am saying that everyone who took part in the Census answer individually. Millions answered a certain way, it's how they identify but yet you seem to have an issue with this. I don't know why. As I've said all the answers are irrelevant to the definition of a man and will not change anything. So that said you are entitled to your opinion and to give your answers but they to are irrelevant, will not change anything and using your phrasing they seem very 'weird" but feel free to voice them. Mrs x" You don't understand the statistics you're reading. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again you are a little confused I am saying that everyone who took part in the Census answer individually. Millions answered a certain way, it's how they identify but yet you seem to have an issue with this. I don't know why. As I've said all the answers are irrelevant to the definition of a man and will not change anything. So that said you are entitled to your opinion and to give your answers but they to are irrelevant, will not change anything and using your phrasing they seem very 'weird" but feel free to voice them. Mrs x You don't understand the statistics you're reading. " Obviously I don't, can you please help me? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So I read the statistics as the vast majority of the adults in the UK think a man is a biological male, who achieves maturity, after going through puberty becoming capable of siring children. I'm not saying trans people aren't people or humans just because they are a minority group, just like I would say disabled people ate not people or humans either. Everyone should be included not excluded. On this occasion I'm probably going with the definition of a man or woman being a biological male or female that has reached maturity, after going through puberty and is reproductivey able. I believe that in the absence of any transitional element that this is the definition I prefer. Trans men and woman are men and woman but they are trans men and trans woman. This is not excluding anyone but just an accurate description of the stage of their identity they are currently at. Mrs x You cannot possibly infer this from the data you’re quoting. Why not, how do you infer it? Mrs x" You cannot infer that ‘the vast majority of the adults in the UK think a man is a biological male, who achieves maturity, after going through puberty becoming capable of siring children.’ Because the data doesn’t tell us anything close to what adults in the UK think a man is. Because we are not being asked anything remotely close to that. It asks for our personal identification. I am cis and the data will reflect that I identify as such. But I believe that sex and gender are different and that what a man is has nothing to do with what sex you are biologically assigned at birth. The data you’re using cannot tell you *THAT*. So it is not possible for you to infer from it what the ‘vast majority’ of people think a man is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You cannot possibly infer this from the data you’re quoting. Why not, how do you infer it? Mrs x" Let's take a demographic form. Ethnicity: I put "white other" When I say I am "white other", I am not saying that Pickle is not (whatever he puts) or you are not (whatever you put). I am saying that white (other) best fits *my* understanding of *my* ethnicity On the same form, I will say I am female. I will say that I am the gender I was assigned at birth. In doing so, I am reflecting nothing about anyone else's identity or genitalia or medical records. I am saying that there is an F on my birth certificate, and that is how I identify. On the same form, I might say my name is Elizabeth. (It is not. Let's pretend) I am not commenting on the validity of Sharon or Stephen or Petunia. I am saying that that is my legal name. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You cannot possibly infer this from the data you’re quoting. Why not, how do you infer it? Mrs x Let's take a demographic form. Ethnicity: I put "white other" When I say I am "white other", I am not saying that Pickle is not (whatever he puts) or you are not (whatever you put). I am saying that white (other) best fits *my* understanding of *my* ethnicity On the same form, I will say I am female. I will say that I am the gender I was assigned at birth. In doing so, I am reflecting nothing about anyone else's identity or genitalia or medical records. I am saying that there is an F on my birth certificate, and that is how I identify. On the same form, I might say my name is Elizabeth. (It is not. Let's pretend) I am not commenting on the validity of Sharon or Stephen or Petunia. I am saying that that is my legal name." I like your little stories but what has this to do with the one question I am referring to on this Census? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You cannot possibly infer this from the data you’re quoting. Why not, how do you infer it? Mrs x Let's take a demographic form. Ethnicity: I put "white other" When I say I am "white other", I am not saying that Pickle is not (whatever he puts) or you are not (whatever you put). I am saying that white (other) best fits *my* understanding of *my* ethnicity On the same form, I will say I am female. I will say that I am the gender I was assigned at birth. In doing so, I am reflecting nothing about anyone else's identity or genitalia or medical records. I am saying that there is an F on my birth certificate, and that is how I identify. On the same form, I might say my name is Elizabeth. (It is not. Let's pretend) I am not commenting on the validity of Sharon or Stephen or Petunia. I am saying that that is my legal name.I like your little stories but what has this to do with the one question I am referring to on this Census? Mrs x" On the census, you are saying that the gender information is about what people think men and women are. I'm sorry you didn't understand my example, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. If the census asks me for my gender, I answer what *my* gender is. Both currently and at birth. If I answer in a way that reflects what I believe gender to be, then I did not read the census correctly, and either I am partially illiterate or I am lying on what will be a historical document. Fortunately, I am able to read the census correctly. Just as my recording of my gender is not my vote on what I think gender is, recording my name is not my vote on whether your name is valid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well this escalated.... "We're into numeracy, so that's fun. I defined "man" in four parts upthread if anyone is interested, in a way that will include everyone no matter how you creatively interpret historical documents. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks GPT !!!" Granny, ChattyP missed out penis AND balls from its definition. I'm confused | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks GPT !!! Granny, ChattyP missed out penis AND balls from its definition. I'm confused "Or if they can reverse park a car …. 🏃♂️ 💨 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks GPT !!! Granny, ChattyP missed out penis AND balls from its definition. I'm confused "Perhaps then, masculinity is not secreted in the testes. And femininity is not secreted in the ovaries. De Beauvoir would love that if true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You cannot possibly infer this from the data you’re quoting. Why not, how do you infer it? Mrs x Let's take a demographic form. Ethnicity: I put "white other" When I say I am "white other", I am not saying that Pickle is not (whatever he puts) or you are not (whatever you put). I am saying that white (other) best fits *my* understanding of *my* ethnicity On the same form, I will say I am female. I will say that I am the gender I was assigned at birth. In doing so, I am reflecting nothing about anyone else's identity or genitalia or medical records. I am saying that there is an F on my birth certificate, and that is how I identify. On the same form, I might say my name is Elizabeth. (It is not. Let's pretend) I am not commenting on the validity of Sharon or Stephen or Petunia. I am saying that that is my legal name.I like your little stories but what has this to do with the one question I am referring to on this Census? Mrs x On the census, you are saying that the gender information is about what people think men and women are. I'm sorry you didn't understand my example, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. If the census asks me for my gender, I answer what *my* gender is. Both currently and at birth. If I answer in a way that reflects what I believe gender to be, then I did not read the census correctly, and either I am partially illiterate or I am lying on what will be a historical document. Fortunately, I am able to read the census correctly. Just as my recording of my gender is not my vote on what I think gender is, recording my name is not my vote on whether your name is valid." Wrong again, they were asked if the identified with their birth identity. Not for a definition of what a man is. Hope this helps. The 2021 census in England and Wales asked people aged 16 and older a voluntary question about their gender identity: "Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?" . 94% of people answered the question, and 93.5% said their gender identity was the same as their sex assigned at birth. This means millions of individuals answer this question by the Census. Millions felt strongly enough to answer a voluntary question. They said they identified as being male or female. They did this in overwhelming numbers. Those that identified differently, did so in much smaller numbers. So I don't think it's unfair to infer from this that the as the majority still identify as their birth identity that they believe that they identify man or woman as that of the biological definition. Similar to the first definition from Granny crumpets definitions above. However it's just my opinion, it doesn't matter or count, just like yours or those individuals that answered the survey. It ALL doesn't matter, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks GPT !!! Granny, ChattyP missed out penis AND balls from its definition. I'm confused
Or if they can reverse park a car ….
🏃♂️ 💨 "Oi! *Shakes fist* I'm excellent at going backwards | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks GPT !!! Granny, ChattyP missed out penis AND balls from its definition. I'm confused
Perhaps then, masculinity is not secreted in the testes. And femininity is not secreted in the ovaries.
De Beauvoir would love that if true. "And what is "truth"? What a wonderful philosophical question for a rainy Tuesday | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wrong again, they were asked if the identified with their birth identity. Not for a definition of what a man is. Hope this helps. The 2021 census in England and Wales asked people aged 16 and older a voluntary question about their gender identity: "Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?" . 94% of people answered the question, and 93.5% said their gender identity was the same as their sex assigned at birth. This means millions of individuals answer this question by the Census. Millions felt strongly enough to answer a voluntary question. They said they identified as being male or female. They did this in overwhelming numbers. Those that identified differently, did so in much smaller numbers. So I don't think it's unfair to infer from this that the as the majority still identify as their birth identity that they believe that they identify man or woman as that of the biological definition. Similar to the first definition from Granny crumpets definitions above. However it's just my opinion, it doesn't matter or count, just like yours or those individuals that answered the survey. It ALL doesn't matter, Mrs x" Oh, it really does matter. Because if you can read "how do you identify" and read anything other than "how do you identify", then you have been failed in your education. As you say yourself, the question is about whether or not people identify with their birth identity. It takes a profound lack of numeracy and literacy to try to infer, as you have done throughout this thread, a single thing about what people think about gender identity as a whole. This level of illiteracy, innumeracy, and dogged determination to stick to an argument no matter how illogical, and no matter how thoroughly it's been explained... if this is typical, then anyone who has been through the education system who has produced that profound failure should be prioritised for urgent, remedial, and intensive educational services in order to give them the basic literacy they require to survive in the modern world. I never thought I'd be let down by the British education system. Here we are, apparently. I do hope this helps. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So I don't think it's unfair to infer from this that the as the majority still identify as their birth identity that they believe that they identify man or woman as that of the biological definition. Similar to the first definition from Granny crumpets definitions above. However it's just my opinion, it doesn't matter or count, just like yours or those individuals that answered the survey. It ALL doesn't matter, Mrs x" Identifying as CIS doesn’t mean you believe in any way that your biological sex defines your gender identity. You simply cannot conclude that from the census data 😂 💀💀💀 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
