GN Toilets

Dr. Bre

What are gender neutral dumps like?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Dr. Bre wrote: »

What are gender neutral dumps like?

Fluid.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Not tall could imply someone is of an average height, when in fact they are of a below average height. Tall implies they are above average, small below average. It's not an apt comparison.

As for hetero, homo, some people are bi and asexual so again those words are required as not-heterosexual isn't an apt description.

This is not true of trans and non-trans.

But you're telling me the equivalent of "bisexual and asexual people don't exist, same as Harry Potter and Star Wars".

And that tall people and small people are two distinct categories of above and below average height. There's no third category.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Because a man is an adult human male. A female is a person with xx chromosomes, and can be a baby, child or adult. Again not an apt comparison.

Ok then - "male" and "not male" - we don't need "female".

manbitesdog

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m not insulted by being called a ciswoman. It wouldn’t anger me. But I prefer to be called a woman. That preference should be respected like any other, shouldn’t it?

You are called a woman. In some very specific contexts, you may be called in a ciswoman to distinguish you from a transwoman. Ciswomen are women, so you are still being called a woman. And in all probability this is never going to come up, but if it ever does the intention is to respect the transwoman’s identification as a woman, and not to deny yours.

Gynoid

manbitesdog wrote: »

You are called a woman. In some very specific contexts, you may be called in a ciswoman to distinguish you from a transwoman. Ciswomen are women, so you are still being called a woman. And in all probability this is never going to come up, but if it ever does the intention is to respect the transwoman’s identification as a woman, and not to deny yours.

And What if I don't want to be called a cis woman ever? Wheres my respect?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Gynoid wrote: »

And What if I don't want to be called a cis woman ever? Wheres my respect?

And I don't want to be called a cis-man.

I'm a man, full stop. A normal man, just like 99.9% of the population, why should I be called anything other than a man?

Gynoid

Hunky Monster wrote: »

And I don't want to be called a cis-man.

I'm a man, full stop. A normal man, just like 99.9% of the population, why should I be called anything other than a man?

Whoa Bro.. I think that's about 49% of the population

I agree with you.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Gynoid wrote: »

Whoa Bro.. I think that's about 49% of the population

I agree with you.

I got my percentages from a right wing website :pac:

manbitesdog

Gynoid wrote: »

And What if I don't want to be called a cis woman ever? Wheres my respect?

Then I come back to asking you to explain why have a problem with it, and I will decide if I find the reasons persuasive or not. I don’t automatically just respect every and anyone’s preferences on how they want to be described.

antix80

Gynoid wrote: »

I don't agree with this. There are people who have gender dysphoria and are perfectly entitled to do what they wish as adults to accommodate it.

Yup.. They can do whatever they want, once it doesn't infringe on a business owner's rights to implement policies to the contrary. And that's the easy part...

Public policy is a different thing, and in schools, public services, etc, i wouldn't like to see men - or trans "women" (as they like to identify) entering women's toilets, changing facilities,... Sports, prisons, anything. It's disrespectful to women.

SoupMonster

Gynoid wrote: »

Whoa Bro.. I think that's about 49% of the population

I agree with you.

50.41% of the population.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.MA.ZS

For a long discussion of why the sex ratio has changed in favour of males, there is a long discussion here https://ourworldindata.org/gender-ratio.
It has nothing to do with any innate sense of gender, it's all about sex and discrimination based on sex.

One eyed Jack

manbitesdog wrote: »

You are called a woman. In some very specific contexts, you may be called in a ciswoman to distinguish you from a transwoman. Ciswomen are women, so you are still being called a woman. And in all probability this is never going to come up, but if it ever does the intention is to respect the transwoman’s identification as a woman, and not to deny yours.

Me bollix “it’s never going to come up”, isn’t it coming up here? Isn’t it coming up plastered all over social media with the specific and purposeful intent of classifying anyone who doesn’t agree with them in a derogatory fashion with the specific intent of trying to wind people up in order to draw attention to themselves? That’s why I didn’t bother saying anything about the whole ‘cis’ nonsense, because the only people who use the term are wind-up merchants sneering behind their keyboards at how ‘clever’ they think they are.

You can feign innocence of course and pretend it’s just a benign term, but not for a minute do I believe you aren’t aware of it’s pernicious use and it’s connotations. It’s that sort of snide, dishonest and frankly sly behaviour that gets people’s backs up and makes people suspicious of your motives. It comes off as less interested in equality and respect, and more interested in belittling people and insulting their intelligence.

antix80

Gynoid wrote: »

And What if I don't want to be called a cis woman ever? Wheres my respect?

Don't worry about it. Don't play their game.. They made up the rules.

Gynoid

manbitesdog wrote: »

Then I come back to asking you to explain why have a problem with it, and I will decide if I find the reasons persuasive or not. I don’t automatically just respect every and anyone’s preferences on how they want to be described.

Uh, ditto. Roh no! Cue the collapse of sjw civilisation!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

manbitesdog wrote: »

Then I come back to asking you to explain why have a problem with it, and I will decide if I find the reasons persuasive or not. I don’t automatically just respect every and anyone’s preferences on how they want to be described.

Who made you the arbiter?

And, well, if you don’t automatically respect what someone wants to describe themselves as, nobody else had to either.

Gynoid

SoupMonster wrote: »

50.41% of the population.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.MA.ZS

For a long discussion of why the sex ratio has changed in favour of males, there is a long discussion here https://ourworldindata.org/gender-ratio.
It has nothing to do with any innate sense of gender, it's all about sex and discrimination based on sex.

Ah yes, this is interesting, sex selective abortion and female infanticide. I should have thought about that.

manbitesdog

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Who made you the arbiter?

And, well, if you don’t automatically respect what someone wants to describe themselves as, nobody else had to either.

I can only be responsible for what I say myself.

Nobody is going to force you to use any of this terminology, but you may find it offends some people if you don’t.

antix80

manbitesdog wrote: »

Nobody is going to force you to use any of this terminology, but you may find it offends some people if you don’t.

**** them

manbitesdog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Me bollix “it’s never going to come up”, isn’t it coming up here? Isn’t it coming up plastered all over social media with the specific and purposeful intent of classifying anyone who doesn’t agree with them in a derogatory fashion with the specific intent of trying to wind people up in order to draw attention to themselves? That’s why I didn’t bother saying anything about the whole ‘cis’ nonsense, because the only people who use the term are wind-up merchants sneering behind their keyboards at how ‘clever’ they think they are.

You can feign innocence of course and pretend it’s just a benign term, but not for a minute do I believe you aren’t aware of it’s pernicious use and it’s connotations. It’s that sort of snide, dishonest and frankly sly behaviour that gets people’s backs up and makes people suspicious of your motives. It comes off as less interested in equality and respect, and more interested in belittling people and insulting their intelligence.

It only comes up here because a bunch of posters who have a problem with it keep posting about it.

Gynoid

manbitesdog wrote: »

It only comes up here because a bunch of posters who have a problem with it keep posting about it.

No. You used the term Cis man first. It was not in the discussion till you used it.
Cis is widely considered a perjorative term. Die Cis Scum was a well known chant among TRAs

Edit - It has been used similarly to the word breeder.

SoupMonster

Gynoid wrote: »

Ah yes, this is interesting, sex selective abortion and female infanticide. I should have thought about that.

3.54% (136/3839) of all women & girls that should be alive today have been killed because they are female.
Yet here we are pretending it's discriminatory to even acknowledge that humans are male/female.

One eyed Jack

manbitesdog wrote: »

It only comes up here because a bunch of posters who have a problem with it keep posting about it.

Ah sure of course, you’re not responsible for keeping it going at all with asking people what’s their problem with it when you know full well what the problem is with it’s use :rolleyes:

Gynoid

SoupMonster wrote: »

3.54% (136/3839) of all women & girls that should be alive today have been killed because they are female.
Yet here we are pretending it's discriminatory to even acknowledge that humans are male/female.

It is shocking.

p1akuw47h5r3it

manbitesdog wrote: »

Then I come back to asking you to explain why have a problem with it, and I will decide if I find the reasons persuasive or not. I don’t automatically just respect every and anyone’s preferences on how they want to be described.

Funny how the idea of "inclusive language" falls at the first hurdle.

antix80

antix80 wrote: »

The existence of transgender people to me is no different than the existence of delusional people, pedophiles, the feeble-minded, or any other people with mental problems. Some are a danger to themselves and some to others. Whether we tolerate them, treat them, incarcerate them.. It's typically at the mercy of society. We don't legislate to pander to the notions or inclinations of sick people. We don't need to grapple with these issues.

In the interest of transparency.. Red card infraction from beasty. I'm not disputing or discussing the infraction.

"Comparing transgender people to others of the type you mention is not acceptable"

manbitesdog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ah sure of course, you’re not responsible for keeping it going at all with asking people what’s their problem with it when you know full well what the problem is with it’s use :rolleyes:

I honestly don’t know what their problem with it is.

manbitesdog

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Funny how the idea of "inclusive language" falls at the first hurdle.

The provide some rationale for your position hurdle?

Outlaw Pete

I use them in the Lighthouse Cinema occasionally but I don't like them. There's a tension in the air that I can't describe. Everyone's on edge. For example one day there was no toilet roll in my cubicle so I popped my head over and asked the woman in the next. Well to say she totally overreacted would be an understatement. Up next Tuesday over it. Say the judge will give her a right earful making a show of me like that.

mynamejeff

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I know about 10/15 Irish trans people. They all understand life perfectly. Not sure what you're on about.

the trans people i know seem to be very confused about a whole lot of things

Gynoid

manbitesdog wrote: »

The provide some rationale for your position hurdle?

I am pretty dismissive of questions of the form “provide some rationale for your objection to the word cis” People will be attracted or repulsed by certain words, and nobody should be labelled with any words they don’t want to be labelled with...