Democrats better run on centerist policy or else we may lose.

@sonhouse said
So a woman with a hysterectomy is no longer a woman because she cannot reproduce?
A woman who is say 60 and too old to bear children is now not a woman?
A woman with some genetic mutation making her barren is not a woman?

Wrong assh@t

Not my point at all.
A woman is a woman.
Plain and simple.
Bone structure, Chromosomes. Scientific stuff. Funny how you love science until it goes against your warped ideas.

@boonon said
Wrong assh@t

Not my point at all.
A woman is a woman.
Plain and simple.
Bone structure, Chromosomes. Scientific stuff. Funny how you love science until it goes against your warped ideas.

But for you you have defined womanhood as one who can bear children. I pointed out not all women are fertile so by your definition, not a female.

A trans male getting the whack job and a BUNCH of hormones converts his body to as close to female as science can make him with the exception he can never reproduce again.
What will you call such a trans say a hundred years from now when genetic engineering can completely transform a man to a woman, with functional uterus, would you say NOPE, not a woman even though there is no penis, not the one manufactured today into a fake vagina, this change with this new technology would show that former male to be female under ANY exam, internal, external, blood tests, hormone levels and all that stuff making a real woman. So would that person then still not be a woman in your eyes if we fast forward a hundred or two hundred years where a fully functional female is made from a former male?

@sonhouse said
But for you you have defined womanhood as one who can bear children. I pointed out not all women are fertile so by your definition, not a female.

A trans male getting the whack job and a BUNCH of hormones converts his body to as close to female as science can make him with the exception he can never reproduce again.
What will you call such a trans say a hundred years fro ...[text shortened]... t forward a hundred or two hundred years where a fully functional female is made from a former male?

You are truly messed up.

There will never be an engineered man or woman. That is not of nature.

Scientifically, Men ARE men. Women ARE women. Again, I point to bone structure and chromosomes. Please refute these natural occurrences that differentiate men from women. Any bodies that are found with only bones remaining, have been identified as a man or a woman from the BONES alone.

End of story.

@boonon said
You are truly messed up.

There will never be an engineered man or woman. That is not of nature.

Scientifically, Men ARE men. Women ARE women. Again, I point to bone structure and chromosomes. Please refute these natural occurrences that differentiate men from women. Any bodies that are found with only bones remaining, have been identified as a man or a woman from the BONES alone.

End of story.

And you seriously underestimate the power of science AND you summarily disregard even the POSSIBILITY we may be able to take a biological female and turn her into a 100% male, whether it is 20 years from now or 200 years from now, that is a distinct possibility because of the power of such genetic mod ability of Crispr and recently even more powerful genetic mod technology.

@Cliff-Mashburn said
You have the reasoning of a small child. A very retarded one.

oh no, a dumb american called me retarded on the internet for repeating what most of the world's psychologists agree.


how will i ever recover.

@AverageJoe1 said
Hahaha Compared me, in liberal-eze, as being comfortable in the way that a pig is comfortable when he is sleeping in mud. Can you believe it. This is why you come to the forum.!!!
Then, he cannot quit. He says that a biological man can decide on a whim because of his feelings that he is a woman. Don’t believe me, just look back and read his words. What a

Next, he s ...[text shortened]... aining morning to say the least. A man can be a woman. Can you imagine carrying that thought around?

"Next, he says, I am dumb, whatever that means,"
you don't know what dumb means?

@Zahlanzi said
"Next, he says, I am dumb, whatever that means,"
you don't know what dumb means?

Not in this scenario. It means one cannot talk, and has further meanings.

@sonhouse said
That is great you love your trans niece but there is still a stigma about it even though you love her or him, however she wants to be called, your implication is with the proper psychiatry she will magically convert to her birth sex.

Even native Americans have their gaggle of trans folks and of course in their cases they don't have technology to be able to convert a bod ...[text shortened]... say NO, it is not US saying that, it is right here in my great book, written by my GOD saying it....

Thank you. I had seen an earlier post of yours where it seemed you were saying that if all "The Gays" were eradicated no new gays would be born -- but now I think I must have missed the sarcasm in that post.

(sorry to paraphrase from vague memory)

@Arkturos said
Thank you. I had seen an earlier post of yours where it seemed you were saying that if all "The Gays" were eradicated no new gays would be born -- but now I think I must have missed the sarcasm in that post.

(sorry to paraphrase from vague memory)

It is a provable fact every generation for tens of thousands of years have their 2 ish % of gays. And will in the far future.

@sonhouse said
It is a provable fact every generation for tens of thousands of years have their 2 ish % of gays. And will in the far future.

You have proof from the far future?

@Zahlanzi said
oh no, a dumb american called me retarded on the internet for repeating what most of the world's psychologists agree.


how will i ever recover.

I was refering to the retarded arguments you put forth that show the reasoning of a little boy:
"So a woman with a hysterectomy is no longer a woman because she cannot reproduce?
A woman who is say 60 and too old to bear children is now not a woman?
A woman with some genetic mutation making her barren is not a woman"

Did you actually think any of those questions made sense?

@Arkturos said
You have proof from the far future?

Do that future thing with my Tardis but lately the inverse quantum drive has clogged up so I have to get some more unobtainium oxide, can't find the stuff on this backward planet....

@Cliff-Mashburn said
I was refering to the retarded arguments you put forth that show the reasoning of a little boy:
"So a woman with a hysterectomy is no longer a woman because she cannot reproduce?
A woman who is say 60 and too old to bear children is now not a woman?
A woman with some genetic mutation making her barren is not a woman"

Did you actually think any of those questions made sense?

they do, if the debating partner has 2 neurons and can follow basic logic. Also helps if they aren't a mysoginistic pig that define women by their ability to spit out children.