1). When our simplistic delineation is incapable of adequately addressing the concept of biological sex, yes.

2). You are conflating biological sex with gender. You just proved why we need experts.

1). People born with extra limbs are still bipedal.  They do not ambulate on their extra appendages.

Clinically speaking, there are 6 sexes (technically more but they don't reach full fetal development). X, XX, XXY, XY, XYY and XXXY.

2). You absolutely conflated sex with gender.  Feminism is about the gender, not the sex.

No answer again?

No, there was never a contradiction. Only a person who didn't understand it before the clarification. The meaning of what I originally said never changed. If a person for no apparent reason presumed that it can only mean one thing, then that is on their reading comprehension.

And the way you've responded here, refusing to clarify how there's been a contradiction, over and over, no matter how many times I ask, makes it seem like you don't want bring this to light.

No, there's actually another reason for why a person refuses to answer a simple question, over and over, after they've painted themselves into a corner.

The problem with this is that you are deliberately wasting the other person's time. Just to avoid explaining something that you brought up, that may make you come off in a bad light.
I gave you many chances to explain. I even specifically said not to just highlight two terms that are opposite, like ice and fire. But you still did exactly that, again. And you still refused to explain.

I'm not going to ask again. But I want you to know that I find this behavior in particular very toxic because it wastes the other posters time on purpose to protect your own ego, and I will keep an eye on your posts in the future for similar behavior.


Other problems with your post also comes down to apparent lack of sincerity.

Like this:

As if you've never encountered immature angry responses online. And as if you think there's no process involved to determine who is suitable to be a moderator. Or maybe that was intended as a backhanded shot at me?

And this:

You were moderated for a comment on the very off-topic subject you're trying to debate with me here. Women's equal rights.
And you know your posts have not always been helpful.

I also don't know if you're intentionally switching between "moderated" / "banned" / "Banned for this specific thing" in order to make it look like you've been more well behaved than I suggested, but given everything else, I wouldn't rule it out.

I'm not going to debate the other issues with you, because I think it's just a waste of time. But I am putting this reply here for moderator related reasons.

Because I've been prioritizing dealing with reports, but mainly because your name came up in a mod related discussion recently, and the context of your exchange with other members, me included, became relevant.

However, when someone refuses to clarify a simple question multiple times, I don't forget it just because a month has passed.

And I told you that pointing at two different phrases, ignoring their meaning or context, does not explain where there is a contradiction.
I wanted an explanation, but had to ask you again and again and again.

First of all, I said for some asexual people, sexuality isn't a factor. Some of them merely have low interest in sexual activity.
But the problem is with this comment you made:

"you are identifying them as asexual then claiming that their sexuality has nothing to do with their identity...doesn't that strike you as ironic?"

At no point did I say 'has nothing to do with their identity'. That's something you made up.

I said "identity is not the same as sexuality". Meaning it's not the defining characteristic of everyone's identity. The degree of how much or little it makes up of someone's identity is different for everyone. I used some asexual people, whose sexuality is completely absent, as an example of how stark the contrast can be.

I'm sure that at this point, you know this. But when you originally falsely claimed that I had said "has nothing to do with", you probably didn't.

It wasn't unrelated, because it looked like you were doing things you've been moderated for in the past.

??
Part of the reason why we have moderators is because we expect that people won't always discuss things reasonably and maturely. And they don't.

When I said that you should know that some people obviously won't take it well that you're ridiculing them for hypocrisy you said you didn't know that because you assume everyone will behave maturely.

But you know that's not the case. People argue. People break the rules. You included.
The mere presence of moderators doesn't change that, even if it demotivates some.

No, I could have moderated you after you refused to answer my question for the 5th time. But I do want to discourage that kind of behavior. Not just from you, but from anyone reading my post. A person should not have to ask for a clarification that many times before they get an answer. If ever.

You know the difference between "moderated" and "moderated for whatever you are accusing me of doing."

I did make it clear that there was a difference between how many times you had been moderated in general, and how many times you were moderated for something potentially related to this. You asked me to specify a number of things I'd rather not be too specific with in a post like this (I can through PM though), and as I did my best to reply, I found that you would respond to my comments about moderations in general with questions of how many times you've been moderated for something specific.

It may not have been your intention to try to be misleading though. I'm not going to assume that.
But just so you know, when moderators are reviewing a post, they don't just disregard any prior history, if it's not related to the particular rule this one may be breaking. But those are of course more interesting.

If you want numbers for your mod history, you can check them yourself under My Profile. Should say something like Moderation History in the top right corner.

I can give you the link: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8598293

But when you ask for things like specific numbers, I don't want to post that here due to our policies.

I also want to add something I edited into my post while you were making this comment, that you missed.

That post came after your post. So you could not have been referring to it, unless you own a time machine.

Your post: 21 April 2019 at 03:58
His post: 21 April 2019 at 04:38

You also used plural, insinuating more than one person.
And I'm not even going to get into how what that poster said is not the same thing you described, or how your understanding of it is not the same as mine either.

are you a supporter of feminism?

How do you distinguish gender?  
For pretty much any rule you could make, you could find exceptions. 

People with XX chromosome sometimes have penises.  

People with penises sometimes have female parts.  

So chromosomes, and penises don't work 100% of the time.  

I prefer letting people decide for themselves.  

I am sure that there are a small number of people that fit into the categories that you've been talking about throughout this thread.  I am sure there is a mother out there somewhere who wishes she had a daughter and convinced her son, he was supposed to be a girl, just like there are mothers out there that try convincing their kid that they are sick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Dee_Dee_Blanchard

If there were cases like that I would 100% agree that it is child abuse.  

But, I don't believe though that there is a large number of cases where this is happening.  Just like I'm not convinced that there are 100's of cases like Blanchard above.  

There are people out there that are genuinely transgender.  They weren't told they were by anyone.  They weren't convinced they were by their parents.  The opposite, they told everyone else they were. 

Science has gotten a lot better, even over the past 30 years to figure out how to prevent abuses from conflicts of interest. 

I made the clarification because you inexplicably interpreted it as "has nothing to do with their identity" when I said no such thing.

I should not have had to explain that.

That's an inaccurate analogy.
I used different terms for the sentences in question. "Is not the same as", "some people are asexual" and "is not a factor".

But that wasn't even what you were caught up on, as you pointed out the 'irony' in my sentence well before I had even used the term "factor".
In fact, before I had even said "I did not say it has nothing to do with."

Just because I clarified that in my original post "I did not say it "has nothing to do with it"", that does not mean that I claimed the opposite.
It simply means I did not say what you claim I said.

The whole "nothing to do with their identity" was your idea. I simply said that this did not come from my mouth.

All I said at that point was that Sexuality is not the same as identity, and then gave asexual people as an example.

What was ironic about the comment?

To refresh your memory, this was our entire exchange on the subject, before you claimed it was ironic:

Me: "Identity is not the same as sexuality. Some people are asexual for example."
You: "do those people identify as asexual?"
Me: "They don't have to. But asexual people exist."
You:"my point is that you are identifying them as asexual then claiming that their sexuality has nothing to do with their identity... doesn't that strike you as ironic?"

The bolded part is the false claim you made.
Which leads me to this:

Yes, and in more than one way. One I already described above.
Saying that I never claimed "it has nothing to do with" does not mean I claim the opposite, nor that I took a stance on it one way or the other.

The reason I felt the need to clarify this to you, aside from the fact that I did not say it, is because there you are dealing in absolute terms.
Something I was careful to avoid at that point, which is why I said "Not the same as". So you replying with "has nothing to do with" was in stark contrast to how I worded my sentence. I had to make that clear.

Secondly, when I later (after you already pointed out some irony I've yet to see explained) used the term "is not a factor" I was also trying to avoid "has nothing to do with their identity".
Partially because some asexual people do have a sexual drive, but also because even for the ones who don't, it can be quite debatable to claim that it's absence has nothing to do with their identity, as I have a personal friend who struggles a lot with existential issues, partially because of the absence of his sexuality. So I would say it does affect his view on his own identity.

The reason I brought up asexual people is because their sexuality and its effect on their identity can vary more than between 'normal people'.

So you're saying that because moderators exist, you don't expect anyone to react badly to something that may otherwise provoke a negative response?
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say.

I did not post the specific details because it's our policy to try to keep those in PM, or in the moderator topic.

I'll just reiterate two things.
Like I said before, bans are not the only relevant moderations we look at. Warnings are as well. Bans generally come as a result of multiple warnings. So they're not inherently different in nature. You can be warned over something more severe than what you end up being banned for.

Secondly, when I go through someone's mod notes, and there is a scroll bar even though I'm viewing it in full page mode, that's usually not a good indication for me personally. Of course, things like being warned for sig length I consider fairly irrelevant to cases where there may be trolling, flaming, etc.

He's saying that the child in question was always female. Or always considered themselves female, once they figured things out. Not that they were a man, and then changed to a woman.

I guess I'll touch on what I meant by "how what that poster said is not the same thing you described" now, since you gave me examples that predate your comment.

What Sundin is saying here is what he perceives to already be true. Not a "difference that he is fighting to reduce."
He thinks that this is how it is. That some women are born in male bodies, and vice versa.

However, I can understand why you might phrase it that way, so on the idea that you were trying to flamebait a particular large group with your comment, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and conclude that that was not your intention.

But let me also explain why your comment may be perceived that way by others.

When you say "fighting to reduce differences", people are going to think about actual differences between men and women that people are fighting to reduce.
One very common thing that may come to mind when reading your comment is something like the difference in average wages between men and women, within the same line of work. And people are fighting to reduce those differences. Literally.

So you could easily be reported by someone for trying to instigate unnecessary arguments with a group of people.

So when you call people out like that in the future, try to be mindful of the words you chose. And if you are referring to someone specific, it's good if you can cite them. Especially if you have a history of stirring the pot when it comes to a group of people.

Who is calling for throwing away the categories?  

I know very few people that are calling to throw away categories.  It's about understanding that the categories aren't as easy to define as people grew up understanding.  

-What about people that choose to change their appearance?  

-What about people that naturally don't have distinctive features that we correlate with sex/gender?

-What about people with both sex organs?  

What does it matter?