Johnny Blade wrote:

THWOTH wrote:I'm an atheist. What's your point Johnny Blade?

I just dont understand why some people are unwilling to make personal statements about what they think.

Are you a cisgendered male?

THWOTH wrote:

Johnny Blade wrote:

THWOTH wrote:I'm an atheist. What's your point Johnny Blade?

I just dont understand why some people are unwilling to make personal statements about what they think.

Are you a cisgendered male?

No. Im just a male.

Johnny Blade wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

Johnny Blade wrote:

THWOTH wrote:I'm an atheist. What's your point Johnny Blade?

I just dont understand why some people are unwilling to make personal statements about what they think.

Are you a cisgendered male?

No. Im just a male.

The Latin prefix cis- has a long tradition in scientific use, and depending on its context means 'on the same side side', 'aligned', or 'close to, near', whereas the prefix trans- mesns the opposite, 'on the other side', 'unaligned', or 'apart from, beyond'. We're familiar with trans- from words like translate, transportation, or transcendental, but cis- is far less common - I can only think of cislunar and cisalpine beyond scientific usage at the moment.

As an adjective 'cisgender' is a word that qualifies, characterises, or is attributed to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds to their sex at birth. There's nothing controversial, novel, or even scary about the term - its use and function are simply descriptive.

So, with this in mind and to the fore....

Are you a cisgendered male?

Johnny Blade wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Johnny Blade wrote:Is it true that people who don't believe god created us, are more likely to support the idea of turning boys into girls?

You’ve already had your ass sufficiently handed to you about this crap here. Do you expect a different result by repeating yourself?

I don't really see an answer there. It's just you kinda lecturing me about your moral superiority.

You're long gone from this conversation, so it's far too late to inform you that you needn't have troubled yourself about anyone's representation of their moral superiority, whether or not it's only a pretense, the way yours is. Anyone who gets involved in arguments about this kind of stuff always ends up making arguments from authority, and some imagined moral authority is at the root of it, invariably. So you got that one right, if only by guesswork and a little projection.

In your case, you resort to something like the justice handed out by a "supreme being" in an imaginary after-life. Other people resort to a theory of justice that is made up piecemeal as we go along, selectively picking out the candidate du jour for the deserving victim who needs to be rescued. Here, it's gender ideology, elsewhere it might be murder on industrial scale. You decide which is the one we most have to watch out for.

I suspect you bob around among all these topics because you don't know whether to shit or go blind. The people you're trolling are a step or two ahead of you, but not much more. Pretty much like you, they're convinced they have the moral authority to fuck with anyone who doesn't toe their line, to the extent of deciding for themselves when they've handed someone's ass to them. See, they're authoritarians, just like you, and they practice that shit in real life only by being willing to risk some skin in the game. For the most part, they just bully their own children, who will turn out to be the same sorts of assholes they are.

A clear-thinking person would never bat an eyelash, let alone proclaim you've had your ass handed to you. Since your thesis is so vacuous, there's little merit in whatever someone did in order to imagine having handed you your ass, but that's just what a certain species of narcissist will eventually end up doing. Theist ideologues do it, secular humanists do it, birds do it, bees do it, even feckless Ph.D.'s do it.