Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 12 Jul 2022, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 2:41 pm

To this point you have been meandering, inarticulately.

Because you recognize that you've spent this time going nowhere, you finish by asserting 

Utterly meaningless.

But clearly you had something more ambitious in mind, and proceed.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this will turn out to be convenient.

But wait..

What if people reject your redefinition? Your problem is of your own making.

You obviously didn't read the OP. Maybe the first 10 words. I am not redefining. Moron. And the same question goes to you, what if people reject your redefinition of gender? Oh yeah, you didn't think about that, did you? Duh. 

I have indisputably demonstrated that gender is tied to sex. You have not refuted that. 

Die.

Vegas » 12 Jul 2022, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 3:42 pm

You obviously didn't read the OP. Maybe the first 10 words. I am not redefining. Moron. And the same question goes to you, what if people reject your redefinition of gender? Oh yeah, you didn't think about that, did you? Duh. 

I have indisputably demonstrated that gender is tied to sex. You have not refuted that. 

Die.
 

The preamble serves no purpose except to introduce your forced definition.

I have indisputably demonstrated that gender is tied to sex.

No, Idiot....you have merely ASSERTED it.

Blackvegetable » 12 Jul 2022, 3:29 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 3:29 pm

 Shut the **** up.

A third category that does not lend itself to being a described by a discreet integer.     

*******. This is why you need to cease with your fancy talk, you just come across more stupid.

1. Integers are both positive and negative. 
2. Demonstrate this third category that is not a discreet value. A 2.3490871?

Vegas » 12 Jul 2022, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 11:50 am

It is the same with sex and gender. Just as person is tied with human life, gender is tied with sex. It's possible to have two different concepts that are still tied together. 

 

Just like pancakes are tied to maple syrup...but are different things.  Even though both have a lot in common...both are eaten, enjoyed, and digested.
 

Vegas » 12 Jul 2022, 3:49 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 3:49 pm

A third category that does not lend itself to being a described by a discreet integer.     

*******. This is why you need to cease with your fancy talk, you just come across more stupid.

1. Integers are both positive and negative. 
2. Demonstrate this third category that is not a discreet value. A 2.3490871?

Because "Other" covers a SPECTRUM, dumb ****...


Kill yourself. Now!

Blackvegetable » 12 Jul 2022, 3:50 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 3:50 pm

Because "Other" covers a SPECTRUM, dumb ****...

Kill yourself. Now!

So demonstrate it. 

Vegas » 12 Jul 2022, 3:51 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 3:51 pm

So demonstrate it.

It's a matter of definition, *******.

Blackvegetable » 12 Jul 2022, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 3:46 pm

The preamble serves no purpose except to introduce your forced definition.

No, Idiot....you have merely ASSERTED it.

There you again with your fancy talk. You do that when you have nothing. It's a pattern with you. 

There is no assertion. It is very possible for seperate concepts to still be tied together, per what I demonstrated., not asserted. 


and **** you fancy talk, either come up with something substantial or get lost.
 

Blackvegetable » 12 Jul 2022, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 3:53 pm

It's a matter of definition, *******.

So...then get moving with it. 

Coward.

1. You will continue to stall.
 

Vegas » 12 Jul 2022, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 3:53 pm

There you again with your fancy talk. You do that when you have nothing. It's a pattern with you. 

There is no assertion. It is very possible for seperate concepts to still be tied together, per what I demonstrated., not asserted. 

and **** you fancy talk, either come up with something substantial or get lost.

You are **** illiterate......and you can't reason.

Your "argument" is a bunch of juvenile ****.

 

Vegas » 12 Jul 2022, 3:54 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 3:54 pm

So...then get moving with it. 

Coward.

1. You will continue to stall.

 Gender identity and the spectrum

A person’s gender identity is not restricted to being either a man or a woman. Some people do not identify with any gender, while others identify with multiple genders.

 According to The Trevor Project, a person’s gender can consist of the following.


https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... ty#history

Blackvegetable » 12 Jul 2022, 3:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 3:55 pm

You are **** illiterate......and you can't reason.

Your "argument" is a bunch of juvenile ****.

Yeah, I didn't think you had anything. It's always the same exact rebuttal with you...every single time:  "assertion." That's it. That is your go-to rebuttal for everything. 

There is no assertions in biology. It's fixed, just like I demonstrated. 

1. Continue to project as usual. 

 

Blackvegetable » 12 Jul 2022, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 3:57 pm

 Gender identity and the spectrum

A person’s gender identity is not restricted to being either a man or a woman. Some people do not identify with any gender, while others identify with multiple genders.

 According to The Trevor Project, a person’s gender can consist of the following.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... ty#history

Which...is...tied...to...sex! 

As I demonstrated. 

1. You will continue to deny the biology part of this. 
100% accuracy.

Blackvegetable » 12 Jul 2022, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 3:57 pm

 Gender identity and the spectrum

A person’s gender identity is not restricted to being either a man or a woman. Some people do not identify with any gender, while others identify with multiple genders.

 According to The Trevor Project, a person’s gender can consist of the following.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... ty#history

Explain how it could even be remotely possible to define gender (regardless of your lame definitions) without bringing up sex. 

Now. 

Vegas » 12 Jul 2022, 4:04 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 4:04 pm

Explain how it could even be remotely possible to define gender (regardless of your lame definitions) without bringing up sex. 

Now.

I don't owe you ****.


I don't need to explain anything to your satisfaction. 
 

Blackvegetable » 12 Jul 2022, 4:18 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 4:18 pm

I don't owe you ****.

I don't need to explain anything to your satisfaction.

Yeah, I didn't think you had anything. 

You lose. 

Die.

Vegas » 12 Jul 2022, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 4:00 pm

Which...is...tied...to...sex! 

As I demonstrated. 

1. You will continue to deny the biology part of this. 
100% accuracy.

WTF does "tied to" mean?


 

Blackvegetable » 12 Jul 2022, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 4:22 pm

WTF does "tied to" mean?

Just dumber than a box of rocks. What the hell do you think is meant by it you stupid moron? Talk a wild guess. 

Clearly, you are asking stupid questions to stall...or maybe you are this stupid. 

Vegas » 12 Jul 2022, 4:28 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 4:28 pm

Just dumber than a box of rocks. What the hell do you think is meant by it you stupid moron? Talk a wild guess. 

Clearly, you are asking stupid questions to stall...or maybe you are this stupid. 

But I must explain "spectrum", and beyond.


"Tied to" is further evidence that you cannot articulate an idea or argument.
 

Blackvegetable » 12 Jul 2022, 4:43 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2022, 4:43 pm

But I must explain "spectrum", and beyond.

"Tied to" is further evidence that you cannot articulate an idea or argument.

It doesn't matter how you define the spectrum. Choose any definition you wish, any. Go ahead. 

Got one? Good. Now, demonstrate that definition while neglecting mentioning man or woman in the context of sex. 


And go....