Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,308
NVM
Last edited:
Would you settle for a really hot, sexy-looking XY with a fully functional vagina and all the other associated external bits?
Ah, but you can't just say that nowadays, and you can't presume, either. You have to specify and get them genetically tested, or it counts for naught...
Seriously though, if you didnt know, couldn't tell by looking, and if everything worked as you'd expect, would it still be a problem... in any language?
Obviously not, because the external bits are a part but not the whole story.Would you settle for a really hot, sexy-looking XY with a fully functional vagina and all the other associated external bits?
You're not quite sure if you are homosexual, but you might be if you meet a man with good enough boobs.Only the sith deal in absolutes.............
Would I go out with someone who has transitioned from Male to Female? Probably not, but as I've never been in that situation I can't really say I would never do it.
You're not quite sure if you are homosexual, but you might be if you meet a man with good enough boobs.
It's not just LGBT anymore. Keep with these progressive times! It's the current year!I wonder how many more letters they will add to LGBT. Where will it end!
There are only two sexes and a very small amount of people with chromosonal and or hormonal disorders.
You have fallen prey of the deliberate conflation of sex and personal identity expression.
I've posted this before, but "normal" isn't the correct word to use in this case. Since you like definitions, here's a grammatical reason why (cut and paste from previous posting):
I think it's helpful to look at definitions. And take an alternative word : 'usual'
normal
conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Usual
habitually or typically occurring or done; customary.
Not a lot in that, although "conforming to a standard" is a little ominous sounding.
Then look at the antonyms, which apply to populations outside of the standard:
Abnormal
deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.
Unusual
not habitually or commonly occurring or done.
And there, I think, is why using "normal" is not good practice. Because you're implying (or maybe outright saying) that those outside the norm are abnormal, which is a word that carries a negative meaning.
Cows and dogs don't have societal roles or expected behaviours according to their sex, humans do. Humans are also sentient and self aware, so humans can be fully aware that though they may have specific reproductive organs they do not necessarily identify nor want to conform to behaving a certain way just because they are born with certain organs. If you want to compare yourself to cows and dogs be my guest.Humans have sexes. Male or female.
If you want to say that there are also two genders, and gender matches sex for 99.9% of people then fine.
But really, humans have sexes. Just like cows and dogs and some electrical cable connections.
It is a made up club intended to drive a wedge between people so that commies and globalists can chip away at society.
.
People can identify however they want, as long as they don't try and force other people to play along.Cows and dogs don't have societal roles or expected behaviours according to their sex, humans do. Humans are also sentient and self aware, so humans can be fully aware that though they may have specific reproductive organs they do not necessarily identify nor want to conform to behaving a certain way just because they are born with certain organs. If you want to compare yourself to cows and dogs be my guest.
Which one is it with you then?