You're transphobic if you aren't bisexual.[W:113]

maquiscat · Mar 31, 2017

CLAX1911 said:
A make can identify as a female. But there would be nothing female about her/him. We have to stipulate context otherwise we will get lost in the ambiguity. I dint think it's a wrong to say a trans woman is male.

I agree context is very important here. Before we humans knew all we do now, sex and gender were pretty much interchangeable. We now know different and are learning more as we go. Because of that previous interchangeability, the terms male and female applied to both and still do. So "male" is not a label that goes only with sex or only with gender. Same with "female". At this point noting one as being biologically male or female will link the label with the sex, but not necessarily the gender. While it is not wrong to say that a trans woman is male, it is also not wrong to say she is female.

I'm not talking about how animals identify themselves, I'm talking about how we identify them. Further they can hump all they want but a jack donkey will never give birth to a foal and a jenny will never produce sperm.

Humans have developed a higher level of consciousness so we have identities. Identities can be separate from sex. I'm not against that.

Again I agree with you. The only problem right now is that we have a label set (male/female) that still applies to both sex and gender. Until the language evolves to separate out labels, such as sex and gender are doing now, this kind of confusion will continue, as well as arguments being made upon that ambiguity. I will take a stab and say the male/female will probably fall with sexual, while man/woman will fall with gender.

If you were to ask me if I would date a trans man, the answer is no. I prefer males for romantic partners. A trans man will never be male. That doesn't make me "transphobic" or any other variation of that word. I accept trans people I will give them the same courtesies I'd give anyone else. But on a romantic level a woman cannot be a man.

But, in going to leave it open, because you never know. I could meet a trans man that changes my mind. As of yet I haven't.

Always for the best. My one wife has always said she might enjoy being with a woman in bed, but she has yet to find the one to tempt her there. I would have doubted I would ever consider a trans woman, but I met one that struck all my "sensors" as female. I won't say that I wouldn't balk when it comes down to the wire, as far as a physical relationship goes. But right now the thought of her doesn't bother me as does the idea of being with any of the gay men who are among my friends. So who knows.

maquiscat · Mar 31, 2017

Renae said:
My uncle was a MM, senior chief I believe he got out as, his advice when I joined was "Don't be a submariner, don't be a nuke"

Oh but the bonuses and the pay! And you start boot camp at E3.

Renae · Mar 31, 2017

maquiscat said:
Oh but the bonuses and the pay! And you start boot camp at E3.

I left boot an E2 due to JrROTC in HS, made E3 in AC A school, took the E-4 exam for AG and crossrated and made E-5 in 5 years flat. Of course, then they seriously cut back the damned rate. The CYCLE before I went for E-6 they made like 100+ E-6's my cycle was like 5, and I was in the top 3%.

CLAX1911 · Mar 31, 2017

maquiscat said:
I agree context is very important here. Before we humans knew all we do now, sex and gender were pretty much interchangeable. We now know different and are learning more as we go. Because of that previous interchangeability, the terms male and female applied to both and still do. So "male" is not a label that goes only with sex or only with gender. Same with "female". At this point noting one as being biologically male or female will link the label with the sex, but not necessarily the gender. While it is not wrong to say that a trans woman is male, it is also not wrong to say she is female.

We have to agree on context. You seem to be blurring it more. I'm not talking about doing so for the world, just in this conversation.

Somebody can't be male and female at the same time without being a hermaphrodite.

Again I agree with you. The only problem right now is that we have a label set (male/female) that still applies to both sex and gender.

Precisely why we have to agree on context. Workout doing so all discussing on this issue is cognitive dissonance

Until the language evolves to separate out labels, such as sex and gender are doing now, this kind of confusion will continue, as well as arguments being made upon that ambiguity.

Bull****. For the sake of this discussion we can define context. We don't need the language to evolve. If i said the word blapodip reffered to vanilla ice cream and had a discussing about blapodip with you, you'd be able to follow.

I will take a stab and say the male/female will probably fall with sexual, while man/woman will fall with gender.

Biological sex, yes.

Always for the best. My one wife has always said she might enjoy being with a woman in bed, but she has yet to find the one to tempt her there. I would have doubted I would ever consider a trans woman, but I met one that struck all my "sensors" as female. I won't say that I wouldn't balk when it comes down to the wire, as far as a physical relationship goes. But right now the thought of her doesn't bother me as does the idea of being with any of the gay men who are among my friends. So who knows.

Well, I don't forsee that being likely, besides, I'm with who I want to be with and whenever we've kicked around the idea of having an open relationship it seems to show us that we're enough.

maquiscat · Apr 1, 2017

CLAX1911 said:
We have to agree on context. You seem to be blurring it more. I'm not talking about doing so for the world, just in this conversation.

We can do so, if you wish. What I was pointing out was that a specific context/relationship has not been established for the world at large, for male/female as far far as sex or gender goes. It has for the words "sex" and "gender", or at least is has gone through enough of a transition that it is not unusual, if not common, for people to use "sex" for the physical body, and "gender" for the identity. But in the larger world, "male" and "female" are still attached to both "sex" and "gender".

Somebody can't be male and female at the same time without being a hermaphrodite.

Yes they can, when the words "male" and "female" are still applicable to both sex and gender. Thus one can be of the male sex, while being of the female gender. Hermaphrodite has, thus far, only applied to sex not gender. To my knowledge no one has ever claim to be of the hermaphrodite gender identity. If they possess a gender identity that is the equivalent of being a hermaphrodite, they call themselves "genderflex" or "gender fluid". So yes, outside of a context established specifically for a conversation, one can be both male and female without being an hermaphrodite. A context, I might add, you yourself did not establish when I made my first response to this particular line of discussion.

[/QUOTE]Precisely why we have to agree on context. Workout doing so all discussing on this issue is cognitive dissonance.

Bull****. For the sake of this discussion we can define context. We don't need the language to evolve. If i said the word blapodip reffered to vanilla ice cream and had a discussing about blapodip with you, you'd be able to follow. Biological sex, yes. [/QUOTE]

Ok, so the. For conversational context, between you and me (and we ask this of others joining in on this particular line of conversation), I believe we can agree to use of male/female to refer to sex, and man/woman for gender. Does that sound good to you?

Well, I don't forsee that being likely, besides, I'm with who I want to be with and whenever we've kicked around the idea of having an open relationship it seems to show us that we're enough.

All I was saying there was your thought was in line with what I call Logan's Law #2: Don't ever say never. Sure right now it seems like such things will never happen, but you really don't know for sure it won't. You are holding out that it might be possible while noting it improbable. I'm just saying that such is a good outlook towards the future.

CLAX1911 · Apr 1, 2017

maquiscat said:
We can do so, if you wish.

It's necessary to have a conversation.

What I was pointing out was that a specific context/relationship has not been established for the world at large, for male/female as far far as sex or gender goes. It has for the words "sex" and "gender", or at least is has gone through enough of a transition that it is not unusual, if not common, for people to use "sex" for the physical body, and "gender" for the identity. But in the larger world, "male" and "female" are still attached to both "sex" and "gender".

Well context isn't defined by the world at large.

Yes they can

Not without blurring context. I'd say you're guilty of a logical fallacy.

All I was saying there was your thought was in line with what I call Logan's Law #2: Don't ever say never.

I've never killed anybody.

Sure right now it seems like such things will never happen, but you really don't know for sure it won't. You are holding out that it might be possible while noting it improbable. I'm just saying that such is a good outlook towards the future.

I stand by my statement.

You're transphobic if you aren't bisexual.[W:113]

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral

Renae

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all