[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog The term cis is ideologue dialogue and is therefore offensive even if you are too dishonest to admit that.

No.

Cis is not ideological. It is a medical term.

And even if it were an ideological term, that would not make it pejorative.

So you have no evidence that the term is pejorative.

Women are not women to ideologues like you. They have to be ciswomen because only Transwomen can be women. This is according to the ideology that YOU are pushing, as an activist! Your ideology is built on lies and you perpetuate it with more lies!

I explicitly deny the claim that only trans women can be women.

If you again claim that I support that, yiu will be deliberately misleading people.

An adult human female is a woman, and not a ciswoman. An adult human male is a man and not a cisman. These are already defined. This is merely done to try to normalize your ideological vocabulary so that you can redefine the words for the feelings of your cultists.

Provide evidence that the oerson who coined cis was trying “to normalize …. ideological vocabulary [to] redefine the words for the feelings of … cultists”

To normal people that isn't a problem. Why do we need to cater to delusion? YOu still haven't answered that, as usual. You never like to actually answer questions, you just sidestep.

Your loaded question is insulting. Rephrase it politley and I will answer it.

Note that here you are justifying an infringement of freedom of speech.

You are therefore implicitly agreeing that it is not progreesives who are restricting free speech, and that instead it is transphobic legislators.

Incidentally:
The Saskatchewan government passed Bill 137 Friday, which makes parental consent required before a child under 16 can use a different gender-related name or pronoun at school.

This means that the parents have to be involved, unlike recent incidents where these things were kept from parents by dishonest ideologue teachers. It can be done only with parental consent, but that's a problem to your ideology because that makes grooming them harder. Parents who actually care about the children might interfere.

https://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/ ... ights-code

Saskatchewan’s Advocate for Children and Youth is concerned the provincial government’s proposed preferred pronoun policy in schools could potentially violate the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.

Gender identity “is a prohibited ground of discrimination under provincial human rights legislation, and the education system has a duty to accommodate the needs of transgender and gender diverse students,” Lisa Broda, provincial advocate for children and youth, said in a press release Friday that accompanied a 41-page review.

This is why the Saskatchewan government is invoking the notwithstanding clause.

Because that isnthe onky kegal way for a provincial government to sidestep human rights violations.

You do that by perpetuating your cult, thru your blind and reckless activism. You spread lies.

You have never been able to show a single lie I have supposedly made.

And you will not do so now. Yiur accusations are unfounded.

[Godstud]

I explicitly deny the claim that only trans women can be women.

False. Adult human females are women. They are not ciswomen, and it is NOT a medical term. That's a lie you like to perpetuate. It's your dogma of your cult.

Provide evidence that the oerson who coined cis was trying “to normalize …. ideological vocabulary [to] redefine the words for the feelings of … cultists”

I don't have to prove reality, cultist. You are the person misleading people with your gender identity lies.

Freedom of speech is being infringed by ideologues of your cult, which says that mis-gendering people is assault and that we have to believe their lies. It also says that people have to go to re-education if they don't use your compelled speech. The legislators struggling against your ideology are not transphobes. They are intelligent, reasonable and rational people who believe in objective reality. You're in the cult of self delusion and false representation who is the most bigoted group of people in existence, today.

Human rights violations? Anything that criticizes the cult of gender ideology is labeled a human rights violation. You have no argument because of this.

Your cult of gender identity is based on lies. Every time you support it, you are admitting to that lie as a reality. You are a fool to think that believing a lie, when you know it's not true, makes you anything but a liar.

[Pants-of-dog]

:lol: False. Adult human females are women. They are not ciswomen, and it is NOT a medical term. That's a lie you like to perpetuate. It's your dogma of your cult.

At this point, I am fairly sure you did not read what I wrote.

It does not matter. The fact is that no one has claimed that only trans women are women, and if you state that I made this claim, you will be misleading people.

I don't have to prove reality, cultist.

Then you have no evidence to prove your claim that cis is pejorative.

You are the person misleading people with your gender identity lies.

If you think I am lying, please show me where I lied.

Freedom of speech is being infringed by ideologues of your cult, which says that mis-gendering people is assault and that we have to believe their lies.

Provide an example of this. With a link. And a quote.

It also says that people have to go to re-education if they don't use your compelled speech.

Provide an example of this. With a link. And a quote.

The legislators struggling against your ideology are not transphobes. They are intelligent, reasonable and rational people who believe in objective reality.

If you want to admire them, feel free. It does not change the fact that the Saskatchewan government is violating free speech laws according to its own case reviewer, and that they were forced to invoke the notwithstanding clause to ram it through.

You're in the cult of self delusion and false representation who is the most bigoted group of people in existence, today.

Ad hominem. Ignored.

Human rights violations? Anything that criticizes the cult of gender ideology is labeled a human rights violation. You have no argument because of this.

No. You have no argument to contradict the quoted facts. So instead, you claim victimhood and accuse others of lying.

Your cult of gender identity is based on lies. Every time you support it, you are admitting to that lie as a reality. You are a fool to think that believing a lie, when you know it's not true, makes you anything but a liar.

Show where I lied. Do so now.

[Godstud]

You support a ideology of lies, @Pants-of-dog . In order to do this, you constantly lie.

All your support of this is based on lies. I can simply quote every fucking thing you say in support of this to show your lies.

[ingliz]

@Godstud

"ideology"

No, it is not.

Cis is a prefix borrowed from the Latin as is Trans.

Cis - 'on the same side as.'

Trans - 'on the opposite side as.'

Example:

Cisalpine Gaul was the land 'on this side' of the Alps from the perspective of the Romans.

Transalpine Gaul was land 'on the far side' of the Alps.

You appear to accept that transvestite, transsexual, and transgender are non-pejorative, so what is your problem with the 'cis' words?

Given the prefixes' traditional pairing, it was inevitable that 'cis' counterparts to these queer trans words would follow.

[Godstud]

Women are women.

Men are men.

They are not cismen and ciswomen simply because some stupid delusional twits want to change things so that only THEY can be men and women according to their gender identity. So... f$%# off @ingliz, you ideologue. You're just another activist for the gender identity cult. The cult of lies.

[ingliz]

because some stupid delusional twits want to change things so that only THEY can be men and women

Your mind has gone, and now you are just posting random farts from an empty brain pan.

Transmen are not, and cannot, be men.

Transwomen are not, and cannot be, women.

Whatever cosmetic procedures they have done, biologically, sex-wise, they are as they popped out of a woman's vagina.

Society, on the other hand, can treat 'gender' as it pleases.

[Godstud]

Transmen are not, and cannot, be men.

Transwomen are not, and cannot be, women.

That's the only facts you have spoken in this entire thread.

You also argued against this only recently.

@Pants-of-dog will not come at you, as you've proven you are not ally to his cult.

[ingliz]

only recently

That has always been my position. It's not my fault you have the reading comprehension of a toddler.

[Godstud]

@ingliz You're dishonest, as you've always supported this ideology and have argued for it. You contradict yourself every time you say you don't care then persist to care. You're an old virtue signaler trying to stay relevant.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

You have no disagreement with the claim that Saskatchewan is infringing on freedom of speech.

You also are unable to show progressives forcing any infringements of speech about this issue.

[Godstud]

@Pants-of-dog It is no an infringement on freedom of speech.

No examples, @Pants-of-dog? You're back to total dishonesty where your ideology is involved.

Psychologist Jordan Peterson could lose license if he refuses social media ‘re-education’
https://nypost.com/2023/01/05/jordan-pe ... education/

Compelled Speech Comes to B.C.’s Courts
Activists have persuaded much of B.C.’s court system to force everyone in court proceedings to declare their preferred pronouns and to use the preferred pronouns declared by others – even if this distorts their view of reality or undermines their case.
https://c2cjournal.ca/2021/05/compelled ... -s-courts/

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog It is no an infringement on freedom of speech.

No examples, @Pants-of-dog? You're back to total dishonesty where your ideology is involved.

Psychologist Jordan Peterson could lose license if he refuses social media ‘re-education’
https://nypost.com/2023/01/05/jordan-pe ... education/

JP is not being threatened by any infringement of speech from any government body.

He is being threatened with losing his psychiatrist license if he continues to break the rules of the order of psychiatry to which he belongs.

Compelled Speech Comes to B.C.’s Courts
Activists have persuaded much of B.C.’s court system to force everyone in court proceedings to declare their preferred pronouns and to use the preferred pronouns declared by others – even if this distorts their view of reality or undermines their case.
https://c2cjournal.ca/2021/05/compelled ... -s-courts/

Are you allowed to say N***** in court rooms?

[Godstud]

JP is not being threatened by any infringement of speech from any government body.

He is being threatened with losing his psychiatrist license if he continues to break the rules of the order of psychiatry to which he belongs.

It is compelled or infringed speech promoted by your cult. I never said "government". Your Strawman is dumb.

Are you allowed to say N***** in court rooms?

That has nothing to do with this, but you know that. Ideologue.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is compelled or infringed speech promoted by your cult. I never said "government". Your Strawman is dumb.

Then you are unaware that the right of free speech is a limitation on government power.

Besides, JP can continue saying his dumb crap and the only consequence will be losing a license he no longer uses.

That has nothing to do with this, but you know that. Ideologue.

No, it is entirely relevant.

Are you allowed to say N***** in a courtroom, yes or no?

If not, is that an infringement of freedom of speech?

[Godstud]

Then you are unaware that the right of free speech is a limitation on government power.

I was not talking simply about governmental powers. You know that, of course.

Besides, JP can continue saying his dumb crap and the only consequence will be losing a license he no longer uses.

False. He simply asserted that he would not use pronouns that people MADE UP.

Are you allowed to say N***** in a courtroom, yes or no?

Strawman. No one is talking about an actual insult. You only defend free speech if it's to call men and women derogatory terms.

[ingliz]

you've always supported this ideology

What is this ideology?

I support bodily autonomy.

If people can consent, they should have the right to fuck up their lives.

I couldn't care less if they are full of regret or are ecstatically happy after having their procedures.

[Pants-of-dog]

I was not talking simply about governmental powers. You know that, of course.

Then everything can be an infringement of speech.

If you get kicked out of a bar for yelling, that is now an infringement of speech!

False. He simply asserted that he would not use pronouns that people MADE UP.

I doubt this.

But whatever, since it does not contradict my claim.

Strawman. No one is talking about an actual insult. You only defend free speech if it's to call men and women derogatory terms.

No one said you made a claim about the word N*****.

So you agree that N***** is not allowed to be said in a courtroom.

Is this an infringement of speech?

[QatzelOk]

Then everything can be an infringement of speech.

A lot of this thread's posts (especially between Pod and Godstud) are a rehash of another thread that only went quiet a few weeks ago.

I thought that we were "over" that discussion now, and that it was time for the next step: Analyzing what went wrong.

And, for what went wrong, I blame categorizationTM (in this thread).

Moderns think, since the 19th Century, that if they can classify something, they can control it. This is not true. All you can control through categorizationTM... is the tone of the propaganda that follows the campaign of category-construction.

Example: If you can throw a lot of sick people into a category with "homosexuals," you can eventually discriminate against homosexuals.

In the early days of discrimination against gays, homosexuals were thrown into a category with axe-murderers, rapists, thieves and arsons.

The category was SINNERS.

Is that what Godstud and Pod have been arguing about? Who are the sinners?

Pod comes off as a High Priest on that topic.

[Pants-of-dog]

And no one has disagreed with the evidence showing that religious conservatives and other transphobes are the ones grouping LGBTQ+ together.