Sure, and who can disagree with that? To me that interpretation carries just as much weight without needing a fatuous appeal to “human rights”.
Only the young ones because boinking another guy too close to your own age would be too gay.
I had a thought. Not all cultures accepted that men should have sex with other men even in Helenic times. I’d say my Jewish ancestors were against it. They did, however, agree with the Greeks and Romans on the role of women.
Women are breeding stock and property.
Do you agree with that UrbanRedneck?
Please, I think we’ve all heard of enough of Urbanredneck’s views on women.
No, but I guess YOU DO or you would not have brought it up.
Or was this just some stupid question to trip me up or something? I mean, what the heck answer did you expect?
Do you really have a Phd?
Why cant you READ? I said, I dont set policy!
However as being the guy who fixes the bathrooms on the workroom floor and has been in both, its a tossup. The womens bathrooms are much cleaner and smell better in general although since our floor staff is about 5-1 women the womens restrooms are busier. I guess I’d let them decide.
It’s a hijack anyway, you dudes could just start a PIT thread or something.
As someone who USES the women’s bathroom, I can tell you, that’s not necessarily the case.
I can read, yes. And, I did see (and acknowledged!) that you do not set policy. That is precisely why I worded my follow up question to you specifically as a hypothetical:
I will not, however, question your reading ability, as you clearly can read, and thank you for answering my question.
Total hijack but, now I’m wondering if it’s a difference between restrooms regularly used by a specific group of people (e.g. the people who work in a particular area) and restrooms used by the general public.
No, I think I’ve made my views on equality clear through the years.
I expected you to clarify just what you meant by ‘the classic role of women’. You failed to do that. So let me ask more directly, what do you feel is the proper role of men and women?
Having been in charge of cleaning restrooms at volunteer events, and as security inspected restrooms after janitorial got done, I can say that that the womens is often just as bad as the mens. Hover-ers and gals flushing their tampons. etc are the main issues, and they can get nasty.
You ain’t kidding.
There’s no sense in even trying to enter this fray because of the emotional subtext that always causes these threads to devolve into hurt feelings and insults abounding, so let’s just go with the evolving language aspect of it.
If you said that so and so politician was “corrupt” and I said that you were wrong because the traditional definition of the word only applied to rotten or spoiled meat, fruits, or vegetables, then you would be right and I would be wrong.
The meaning of the word has evolved through the natural progression of language without controversy or advocacy by anyone. And in my mind, that is how language evolves.
But it doesn’t “evolve” by fiat. I think your post is just question begging. If you want to insist that a person born a woman who decides/feels/transitions to become a man is actually a “man,” no different than a person born a man, then you must provide evidence that the language has truly evolved in this manner because common experience shows it has not. If anything, it shows that some merely wish it has evolved in this manner.
It’s trivially easy to do this - they’re are tons of examples online, and in common day to day interaction, of these words being used in the way I describe. Not everyone accepts these definitions, but millions, or tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, do. And more and more each year. It’s happening “naturally”, as it always does, even if some people don’t like it. Just as it does/did for “marriage”.
Language doesn’t care what individuals believe or accept. If tens of millions of English speakers are using “man” and “woman” as I do, to describe gender identity, then that is one of their definitions. You can stamp your feet and complain, but that won’t change anything. Use defines definitions, and millions and millions are using these words as I do.
Or… I can just observe how he lives his life, and note that in day-to-day interactions, the word “man” is entirely appropriate. He looks like a man, he acts like a man, you often wouldn’t be able to pick him out of a lineup of cis men without taking off his pants…
More broadly, every linguistic change is “by fiat” to one degree or another. The shift in treating AFAB men as men has been ongoing for over 40 years at least.
Except that nobody is insisting that a transgender man is literally no different from a non-transgender man. That’s why we have distinctions like “transgender” and “non-transgender” or “cisgender”: to be able to identify and express such differences.
Similarly, nobody is trying to say that, for instance, the husband of a gay man is literally no different from the husband of a straight woman. Generally speaking, one of those husbands is gay and the other is straight. But the point is that the word “husband”, at least as far as civil marriage is concerned, is defined broadly enough that both gay men married to men and straight men married to women qualify as “husbands”, even though nobody’s claiming that being a gay man is exactly the same thing as being a straight man.
Similarly, both transgender and non-transgender men qualify as “men” in terms of their gender identity, even though nobody’s claiming that being a transgender man is exactly the same thing as being a non-transgender man.
It’d be around 99.4%, as trans people comprise approximately 0.6% of the population.
When I was a barman I’d sometimes have to check the toilets at the end of the night to make sure no-one had passed out drunk in the stalls or whatever. The men’s toilets were bad. The women’s toilets were an absolute horror show! Like, every week without fail they were twice as messed up.
'cept it also doesn’t cover intersex people, or in fact anybody else from the rainbow population, or asexuals, or…