Report: Fitness Center Bans Woman For Refusing To Share Locker Room With Transgender Man

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, yes. But you are a cisgender man as distinct from a transgender man. It’s like “heterosexual,” giving a word to the more common state because calling it “normal” is kind of insulting to those who fall outside it.
 
Usagi said:
Well, yes. But you are a cisgender man as distinct from a transgender man. It’s like “heterosexual,” giving a word to the more common state because calling it “normal” is kind of insulting to those who fall outside it.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…as a man struggling with SSA, I have never quite understood the ire which the word ‘normal’ seems to ignite in some quarters. After all, it is not a value judgment, though some ignorant persons may have used it that way, quite wrongly in my opinion. The word ‘normal’ simply indicates the typical or average standard from which deviations may be observed. Thus, since heterosexual, ‘cis-gender’ persons comprise by far the vast majority of the population(and a good thing, too, or the human race would be unable to propagate itself), it is quite proper and correct to use the word ‘normal’ in this context without giving offense.
 
How about just drop cisgender and make the distinction between man and transgender man.
 
But sex isn’t something assigned to a baby, it’s observed based on reality and further testing when necessary. There seems to be an element of victim when people describe themselves as assigned male or female at birth.
 
That won’t work if one is referring to cis-gender people as a group. Drop cis- then it can sound like trans-gender folk aren’t people. Generally these terms only need to be used when talking about specific subjects; they don’t need to be employed in every conversation. There are a lot of technical terms that we don’t use everyday, there are Catholic words of art that only make sense to seasoned Catholics. I don’t use randomly use jargon that makes sense at work but might need explanation outside of that environment.
 
I personally refuse to call myself a ciswoman, I’m just a woman
 
Post of the day award. It is women who take the worst hit with this latest coup of radical left ideology, the male in the female locker room. We females are just too darn nice and compliant. Men would never put up with this kind of intimidation - besides what do they care if women are in their locker room and trust me this will never happen. It all happens in the women’s locker room. It is a power thing. We are being bullied by the left into submission.
 
Last edited:
How is it denying transgender their humanity by making the the distinction between man and transgender man and dropping cisgender? Transgender man is still a human term right?
 
The whole trans ideology seems to divide us into men and others. I would argue women are not just people who aren’t considered men but a distinct biological group.
 
I agree. To me the radical gender ideology thing is basically a war on humanity, on life, on health, all of us. But in this particular case, where women are so undermined and disrespected, I find the indifference of these activists to be revealing - it proves my hunch in terms of negative vs positive (life affirming) mentality. Not all negative. There may be good intentions with respect to those suffering from various psychological disorders by means of normalizing their condition, but I don’t think this strategy will bear fruit. Nature is against it and so is psychology - objective truth. We are all going to suffer through this though.
 
I’m certainly not ashamed that I believe both men and women need a meaningful identity and language so that both are able to talk and advocate about the important issues that affect them. Being a man or a woman shouldn’t be reduced to a lifestyle choice.
 
Right. What would be your opinion of a frog or cat or chimpanzee who did this? How would the rest of the frogs, cats, chimpanzees be expected to respond? What would be in fact the proper response? Is Darwin our friend or enemy? Is reason our friend or enemy? Remember these folks are atheists, right. No difference between man and animal. Reason is a white male construct.
 
Last edited:
Eventually, I feel that many places of business are going to simply move in the direction of private, non-gender specific bathrooms/locker rooms. Then they can simply side-step this political minefield. I imagine they would have done so already except for the difficulties of logistics and expense.
 
kill051 said:
Hmmm…as a man struggling with SSA, I have never quite understood the ire which the word ‘normal’ seems to ignite in some quarters. After all, it is not a value judgment, though some ignorant persons may have used it that way, quite wrongly in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I concur. My son has autism. He is, in that sense, not “normal” as in his cognitive development and behavior are literally “outside of the norm.” Saying he’s not normal isn’t a value judgment nor does it take away his dignity as a child of God. It’s just descriptive.

Now, do some people use it in a pejorative sense? Sure. And that—as you say—is wrong for them to do.
 
Rhubarb said:
I don’t know if the article is using the words wrong on purpose to dig at the idea of transgender people, or they just haven’t bothered to get the terminology right.
Click to expand...
I think the issue here (and where people get confused) is that those who think that men are men and women are women and that’s that will see the term “trans-man” and think, “I see the word man, so it is a man that thinks he is a woman.”

Those who think it’s possible for someone to be born into the body of someone of the opposite gender will see the term “trans-man” and see, “There is someone who in their soul is a man, so it is a man who was born with female biological parts.”

Thus, accepting those terms is, in a sense, acquiescing part of what is being debated. So I’m not surprised that people are confused or that they speak of it as “wrong.” There are many people who think that it is wrong and that it’s simply not possible for a biological man to be a woman (or a biological woman to be a man).

I don’t know how you feel about it personally, but even if you disagree, there are those who truly believe it is wrong—not “wrong” in the moral sense that people are sinning for feeling this way, but “wrong” in the sense of being factually incorrect that someone could mentally be a different gender than their biology dictates.
 
Joe_5859 said:
40.png
kill051:
Hmmm…as a man struggling with SSA, I have never quite understood the ire which the word ‘normal’ seems to ignite in some quarters. After all, it is not a value judgment, though some ignorant persons may have used it that way, quite wrongly in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I concur. My son has autism. He is, in that sense, not “normal” as in his cognitive development and behavior are literally “outside of the norm.” Saying he’s not normal isn’t a value judgment nor does it take away his dignity as a child of God. It’s just descriptive.

Now, do some people use it in a pejorative sense? Sure. And that—as you say—is wrong for them to do.
Click to expand...
Good point. I am reminded that the terms idiot, moron, imbecile and cretin were originally descriptive as well, not pejorative. Three of the four terms had concrete definitions, to wit: Idiot indicated an individual with an IQ of 25 or less; imbecile indicated an IQ of 35-49, and moron denoted someone whose IQ fell between 51 and 70. Cretin was used for unfortunates who suffered from cretinism, a stunting of the physical and mental faculties. These words, originally neutral scientific descriptors, have become terms of derision and contempt through misuse by the hateful and ignorant. Our fallen nature has the potential to tarnish everything with which we come into contact, including language.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top