On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:02:40 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> >> It should irk you to be called a Putin sympathizer when you're not one.
> >> Likewise, it irks me to be called a man when I'm not one, by my
> >> understanding of the word.
> > You don't get to tell words what they mean. (Unless you pay them
> > extra, of course.)
>
> As I've remarked before, I use definitions similar to those common in
> gender studies, psychology, sociology, trans medicine - and of course,
> among trans and genderqueer people.

But here, you're not conversing with practitioners of those specialties,
using in-group jargon.

> I hope you don't reject all statements from physicists and engineers who
> use "force" or "energy" with the definitions usual in physics instead of
> those you're familiar with in everyday life. The physics definitions of
> force and energy are more precise and more useful than everyday terms
> when talking about physical processes.

They're fine in physics and engineering textbooks and reports.

> Similarly, the gender studies definitions of man and woman are more
> precise and more useful when talking about gender.

Within gender studies.

> Plus, one more time, the definitions that I observe people using in real
> life are not the same that people here claim are normal to them. I

You've said that your IRL coterie is a limited selection of people who
share your interests where the technical terminology has already
been redefined and does not confuse.

> believe some of this only happens because posters imagine things in
> abstract from the solitary confines of their room, instead of watching
> themselves or others in real human interaction.

Few "posters" here have the opportunity to "interact" with members of
that vanishingly small minority.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 08:03:19 -0400, CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of proving
>> masculinity, then you don't know the first thing on gender. You
>> haven't reached the level of awareness of many a 6-year-old. You
>> missed not only Gender 101, but also Feminism 101 (which your other
>> remark below confirms, too.)
>
>I did wish not to be mistaken for a girl when I was six. Now I pee
>standing up or sitting down, as convenience dictates. It's part of
>being a grownup.

There is no proof around that I know of that supports this, but it's
my assumption that human males have peed standing and human females
have peed squatting since the first humans managed uprightness.

The positions were the natural result of the ability to aim the flow,
not convenience of access or the concept of masculinity. The males
had the ability to aim the flow out and away so they could remain
standing, and the females found that squatting left their lower limbs
less damp.

Somewhere there might be a cave drawing that supports my theory, but I
don't know of it.

It is somewhat reassuring that the transqueer community, as
represented here by Quinn, is as subject to perpetuating myths as the
rest of us.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:19:37 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:02:31 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

> >or "Quinn is a man. Quinn wears bras."

If he has atypically large breasts, it may be advisable. If he doesn't,
it's pointless. Men may have large breasts because of (a) obesity or
(b) gynecomastia. ((a) is probably a lot more common.)

> Those are not even conflicting statements. Just because they are not
> what one usually expects to see/hear doesn't mean that it would be
> confusing. They merely identify Quinn as one of those men who wears a
> bra, and it's well-known that some do. The shock value of that went
> to zero a long time ago.

It was one of the better *Seinfeld* episodes -- Frank Constanza's (Jerry
Stiller) latest get-rich-quick scheme.

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 6:59:05 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 12:32 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > CDB wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> CDB wrote:
>
> >>>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to
> >>>>> me, because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday
> >>>>> sense (as opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves
> >>>>> looking and acting like a man.
> >>>> What a piece of work you are!
> >>> Kindly continue the quotation.
>
> >> I was saving that for the next round.
>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_a_piece_of_work_is_a_man#Stage_productions
> >>> Interesting stuff higher up about variants.
>
> >> I tend to hear it in the Ragni/Rado version from _Hair_. I have to
> >> remember to put the article back in if I'm quoting Shakespeare.
>
> > Meaning you didn't look at the discussion of variants at the top
> > of the article.
> Sure I did. The canonical (First Folio) version still has the article,
> and I still hear the musical version.

The creators of the First Folio were not editors in any modern sense.
Moreover, corrections were being made throughout the printing
process of the 500 or so copies they made -- someone could go
to the Folger and check a couple hundred copies. (They probably
haven't finished their project of scanning every page of every copy
to try to arrive at "original intent"ish.) It's better without the "a." It
could just be given to Neil Armstrong to fix his gaffe.

> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fstxNFdQWZQ

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 9:46:58 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 08:03:19 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of proving
> >> masculinity,

That might work (but I doubt it) for people who do a lot of peeing in public.

> > then you don't know the first thing on gender. You
> >> haven't reached the level of awareness of many a 6-year-old. You
> >> missed not only Gender 101, but also Feminism 101 (which your other
> >> remark below confirms, too.)

I ignored this (addressed to me) when I came across it above. It's
been 64 years since I was a 6-year-old, and the world has changed.
My A. Philip Randolph story would be relevant here.
> >I did wish not to be mistaken for a girl when I was six. Now I pee
> >standing up or sitting down, as convenience dictates. It's part of
> >being a grownup.
>
> There is no proof around that I know of that supports this, but it's
> my assumption that human males have peed standing and human females
> have peed squatting since the first humans managed uprightness.
>
> The positions were the natural result of the ability to aim the flow,
> not convenience of access or the concept of masculinity. The males
> had the ability to aim the flow out and away so they could remain
> standing, and the females found that squatting left their lower limbs
> less damp.

Doubtless most people have observed (willy-nilly) the different postures
of male and female canines doing their business on the sidewalk.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 9:46:58 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 08:03:19 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of proving
>> >> masculinity,

>> > then you don't know the first thing on gender. You
>> >> haven't reached the level of awareness of many a 6-year-old. You
>> >> missed not only Gender 101, but also Feminism 101 (which your other
>> >> remark below confirms, too.)
>
You have made prior comments about people "screwing up attributions".

The above text was posted by Quinn, not by me and not by CDB. Quinn
does not appear in the attributions.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 9:46:58 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 08:03:19 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of proving
> >> >> masculinity,
> >> > then you don't know the first thing on gender. You
> >> >> haven't reached the level of awareness of many a 6-year-old. You
> >> >> missed not only Gender 101, but also Feminism 101 (which your other
> >> >> remark below confirms, too.)
> >
> You have made prior comments about people "screwing up attributions".
>
> The above text was posted by Quinn, not by me and not by CDB. Quinn
> does not appear in the attributions.

The text I posted at 10:03 (which for some reason your system
identifies as 7:03 PDT) replied _to you_ and responded to several
paragraphs you posted. Mentioning dogs on the sidewalk.

Any disrupting of the attributions was by either Q or CDB, but why you
did not see the entire message, I cannot fathom.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 09:57:04 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 9:46:58 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 08:03:19 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of proving
>> >> >> masculinity,
>> >> > then you don't know the first thing on gender. You
>> >> >> haven't reached the level of awareness of many a 6-year-old. You
>> >> >> missed not only Gender 101, but also Feminism 101 (which your other
>> >> >> remark below confirms, too.)
>> >
>> You have made prior comments about people "screwing up attributions".
>>
>> The above text was posted by Quinn, not by me and not by CDB. Quinn
>> does not appear in the attributions.
>
>The text I posted at 10:03 (which for some reason your system
>identifies as 7:03 PDT) replied _to you_ and responded to several
>paragraphs you posted. Mentioning dogs on the sidewalk.
>
>Any disrupting of the attributions was by either Q or CDB, but why you
>did not see the entire message, I cannot fathom.

I saw the entire message, including the dogs on the sidewalk. The
passages retained above were written by Quinn, but your screwing up of
the attributions by omission suggests they were written by me or by
CDB.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:29:26 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 09:57:04 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 9:46:58 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 08:03:19 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of proving
> >> >> >> masculinity,
> >> >> > then you don't know the first thing on gender. You
> >> >> >> haven't reached the level of awareness of many a 6-year-old. You
> >> >> >> missed not only Gender 101, but also Feminism 101 (which your other
> >> >> >> remark below confirms, too.)
> >> >
> >> You have made prior comments about people "screwing up attributions".
> >>
> >> The above text was posted by Quinn, not by me and not by CDB. Quinn
> >> does not appear in the attributions.
> >
> >The text I posted at 10:03 (which for some reason your system
> >identifies as 7:03 PDT) replied _to you_ and responded to several
> >paragraphs you posted. Mentioning dogs on the sidewalk.
> >
> >Any disrupting of the attributions was by either Q or CDB, but why you
> >did not see the entire message, I cannot fathom.
>
> I saw the entire message, including the dogs on the sidewalk. The

Then you lied about me quoting nothing you wrote.

> passages retained above were written by Quinn, but your screwing up of
> the attributions by omission suggests they were written by me or by
> CDB.

Wrong.

I changed nothing.

Go screech at someone else.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 11:37:54 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:29:26 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 09:57:04 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 9:46:58 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 08:03:19 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> >> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of proving
>> >> >> >> masculinity,
>> >> >> > then you don't know the first thing on gender. You
>> >> >> >> haven't reached the level of awareness of many a 6-year-old. You
>> >> >> >> missed not only Gender 101, but also Feminism 101 (which your other
>> >> >> >> remark below confirms, too.)
>> >> >
>> >> You have made prior comments about people "screwing up attributions".
>> >>
>> >> The above text was posted by Quinn, not by me and not by CDB. Quinn
>> >> does not appear in the attributions.
>> >
>> >The text I posted at 10:03 (which for some reason your system
>> >identifies as 7:03 PDT) replied _to you_ and responded to several
>> >paragraphs you posted. Mentioning dogs on the sidewalk.
>> >
>> >Any disrupting of the attributions was by either Q or CDB, but why you
>> >did not see the entire message, I cannot fathom.
>>
>> I saw the entire message, including the dogs on the sidewalk. The
>
>Then you lied about me quoting nothing you wrote.

Petey, I know that recreational toking is now legal in New Jersey, but
you seem to have overinduldged.

No lie was written. I did not say you quoted nothing I wrote.

I said, in case you can't make it out on the screen, "The above text
was posted by Quinn, not by me and not by CDB". Are you too
disoriented to understand what "the above text" refers to?

The reason I directed the comment to the "above text" is that the text
above contains statements that only Quinn would write. Neither CDB
nor I would write such nonsense.

Your attributions did not include Quinn.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 24/04/22 04:37, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Then you lied about me quoting nothing you wrote.

If you thought somebody wrote something, but they did not in fact write
anything like that, is it still a lie?

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:02:40 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>
>>>> It should irk you to be called a Putin sympathizer when you're not one.
>>>> Likewise, it irks me to be called a man when I'm not one, by my
>>>> understanding of the word.
>>> You don't get to tell words what they mean. (Unless you pay them
>>> extra, of course.)
>>
>> As I've remarked before, I use definitions similar to those common in
>> gender studies, psychology, sociology, trans medicine - and of course,
>> among trans and genderqueer people.
>
> But here, you're not conversing with practitioners of those specialties,
> using in-group jargon.
>
>> I hope you don't reject all statements from physicists and engineers who
>> use "force" or "energy" with the definitions usual in physics instead of
>> those you're familiar with in everyday life. The physics definitions of
>> force and energy are more precise and more useful than everyday terms
>> when talking about physical processes.
>
> They're fine in physics and engineering textbooks and reports.

No, it's not about where, it's about what. If you say "thrower" instead
of "pitcher", you're not discussing baseball seriously, in whatever
venue.

>> Similarly, the gender studies definitions of man and woman are more
>> precise and more useful when talking about gender.
>
> Within gender studies.

No.
>> Plus, one more time, the definitions that I observe people using in real
>> life are not the same that people here claim are normal to them. I
>
> You've said that your IRL coterie is a limited selection of people who
> share your interests where the technical terminology has already
> been redefined and does not confuse.

And staff in restaurants, stores or doctor's offices who greet me with
"Bonjour, madame."

I think very few of those people would feel it appropriate to switch to
"he" if informed about my birth sex. It's just not natural. There was
that receptionist who filled my file based on my health insurance card,
with my male legal name on it, then gave the card back to me with the
words "merci, madame." Made my day.

Anyway, everyone meeting me IRL these days starts from the assumption
that I'm a woman and should be addressed as "she" (outside the few
circles - even for me - who routinely ask). I'm not entirely used to it
and still often operate on the assumption that I'm obviously trans, but
that doesn't seem to be true any more. In a lesbian meetup earlier this
year, a woman told me something about her experience of coming out, then
I said something about my experience coming out, and then understood
from her puzzled look that I should clarify that in my case, it's coming
out as trans rather than as gay.

So, using "she" is an understandable mistake, but "he" is just nasty and
ideological, and here is one of very few venues where I still have to
deal with that.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

* CDB:

> On 4/22/2022 1:02 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>> * CDB:
>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>> CDB:
>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> * CDB:
>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>> CDB, the American:
>>>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> And if you still think it's about "a word", I guess
>>>>>>>>>> you're a lost cause.
>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for making it clear that your "request" is
>>>>>>>>> in fact a threat.
>
>>>>>>>> I have no idea where you get that from.
>
>>>>>>>> A threat of not talking to you any more? Well, thanks
>>>>>>>> for valuing me that much.
>
>>>>>>> I didn't say it was an effective threat.
>
>>>>>> It still sees like a wrong usage to me. More obviously so
>>>>>> than when my ex said I shouldn't threaten her with divorce,
>>>>>> and I said that's not a "threat", because I wouldn't do it in
>>>>>> order to hurt her, but to get myself out of harm's way.
>
> I don't see how your motive for threatening your ex bears on the
> question. A threat is a threat in any case.

But a threat is not "an expression of intent to take whatever kind of
action", but "an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or
damage" (Merriam-Webster)

Motive is implied.

>>>>>>> What did you mean by "CDB, the American" up above? Shall
>>>>>>> I act outraged? I have been taken for an American many
>>>>>>> times, sometimes by people from other parts of the world,
>>>>>>> sometimes by Americans. I have never been bovvered.
>
>>>>>> It's supposed to be a closer match to the false attribution
>>>>>> of an identity that's the subject of debate, with a term
>>>>>> that's not objectionable on its own.
>
>>>>>> I do expect that it'd get annoying if it was repeated by
>>>>>> various people with the regularity of pronouns, and even more
>>>>>> so when people pick up on it and blame you for the havoc
>>>>>> Americans wreak in the world, assume that you probably carry
>>>>>> a gun around and such. But still, Canadian and American may
>>>>>> not be different enough as identities to compare to genders.
>>>>>> I could try "Putin-sympathizer" or something.
>
>>>>> Since you know, or ought to know, that that is untrue, calling
>>>>> me a putinista would be a lie. I would probably post in to
>>>>> contradict it, since it would be a lie that could damage my
>>>>> reputation, but I would not be all of a doodah. I think I
>>>>> would consider the source.
>
>>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to
>>>> me, because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday
>>>> sense (as opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves
>>>> looking and acting like a man.
>
>>> What a piece of work you are!
>
>>>> I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to
>>>> some confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the
>>>> ladies' room", "he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's
>>>> out with his lesbian group", but I actually kind of enjoy these,
>>>> because they underline that gender is fake.
>
>>> Have I disappointed you, then, with my consistent use of your
>>> preferred pronouns? My objection is still what it has always been:
>>> I decline to be forced into something that I am demonstrably
>>> willing to do out of courtesy or sympathy, or for some other
>>> relatively inoffensive motive.
>
>>>>> You seem to be relevance-challenged in picking your
>>>>> comparisons.
>
>>>> I won't be able to pick one you'll accept if you're not ready
>>>> to.
>
>>> Have to get my mind right? Sure, Captain.
>
>>>>> You may not like some of the things I say, but IMO none of them
>>>>> are untrue. I don't think you can credibly claim they are, and
>>>>> I'm certain you can't say - credibly - that I know they are.
>
>>>> Why should I believe what you claim about yourself? That's the
>>>> main point I'm making here.
>
>>> Well, why didn't you say that was your main point?
>
>> With this specific comparison. Other comparisons made other points.
>
>>> In fact I am remarkably frank with this group; now that I'm old I
>>> no longer see much point in lying, and doing that here would be a
>>> little like cheating at solitaire.
>
>>> That being said, I have no mandate, and no wish, to make you
>>> believe what I say. My "main point" is that you have no such
>>> mandate either.
>
>> Sure. I can't make you believe what my legal sex registration is nor
>> what my gender is. You chose to believe one but not the other. In
>> any case, not believing me shows you don't think highly of me.
>
> In some respects, that is true. In some respects, I feel sorry for you.
>
>> It should irk you to be called a Putin sympathizer when you're not
>> one. Likewise, it irks me to be called a man when I'm not one, by my
>> understanding of the word.
>
> I know who and what I am. The opinions of other people can't change
> that. Try it yourself, some time.
>
>> I know you're using the word with a different definition, but that
>> means you side with a worldview that is tied to my oppression, that
>> makes bathroom laws and such possible. There's the parallel to the
>> N-word you wouldn't see.
>
> Poor oppressed creature, with your own place and plenty to eat and money
> to buy brassieres with! Can you imagine their suffering? Some people
> don't jump when they says "jump".
>
>>>> Interestingly, if you classify me as a man, that is also solely
>>>> based on my declarations, so I wonder how you pick which of my
>>>> statements to accept and which to reject.
>
> You posted here for quite a long time as "Oliver". Then you changed
> your mind, possibly considering that your privilege.

Of course. And there were no people so intent on being nasty as to
continue using the old name.

But when it comes to pronouns, nastiness becomes the smaller issue to
some people, in comparison with some misguided other value, about
language or, more likely, their ideology of sex and gender.

>>> AFAICR, I have accepted your statements of fact; it's your
>>> statements of claim that I don't accept
>
>> This is where "disrespect" comes into play: you accepted what I
>> reported others saying about me (by assigning me a gender based on my
>> sex), but not my own opinion on my gender.
>
> Your opinion of your gender is fine with me; fill your boots. I prefer
> to classify people according to sex (please take note of the next part)
> _either biological or demonstrated_. That is the custom of most of
> humanity.
>
> If you want to present yourself as a woman, I'll accommodate that under
> the "demonstrated" clause. I have already changed my use of personal
> pronouns, partly in response to your nagging and partly under the "feel
> sorry" clause, to use the "undetermined" forms for you, but I am not
> your stooge.
> ,
>> If I had told you that my schoolmates called me a teacher's pet and
>> a grind*, but I wasn't, I just loved learning, and you chose to side
>> with the others' judgment, that's a similar feeling.
>
> That would be what made you a pet. I see no cognitive dissonance here.

Not for me. I read the books I liked and often enough didn't even do my
homework. Teachers were lenient about that, because I was doing better
than most without that, anyway.

The German term I was trying to express here (cognate of "striver")
implies that you study hard because you want those grades or want to be
liked by the teacher. I just followed my hobbies, and the rest was a
side effect. Most of the other students understood that, too. There was
only one class in which it became an issue, because of a bad teacher,
and most students not knowing me a long time.

* Tony Cooper:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:02:31 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:09:26 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:05:55 -0400, Quinn C
>>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>* CDB:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 8:59 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>> * CDB:
>>>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> * CDB, the American:
>>>>>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And if you still think it's about "a word", I guess you're a
>>>>>>>>>>>> lost cause.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for making it clear that your "request" is in fact a
>>>>>>>>>>> threat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea where you get that from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A threat of not talking to you any more? Well, thanks for valuing
>>>>>>>>>> me that much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't say it was an effective threat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It still sees like a wrong usage to me. More obviously so than when
>>>>>>>> my ex said I shouldn't threaten her with divorce, and I said that's
>>>>>>>> not a "threat", because I wouldn't do it in order to hurt her, but to
>>>>>>>> get myself out of harm's way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What did you mean by "CDB, the American" up above? Shall I act
>>>>>>>>> outraged? I have been taken for an American many times, sometimes
>>>>>>>>> by people from other parts of the world, sometimes by Americans. I
>>>>>>>>> have never been bovvered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's supposed to be a closer match to the false attribution of an
>>>>>>>> identity that's the subject of debate, with a term that's not
>>>>>>>> objectionable on its own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do expect that it'd get annoying if it was repeated by various
>>>>>>>> people with the regularity of pronouns, and even more so when people
>>>>>>>> pick up on it and blame you for the havoc Americans wreak in the
>>>>>>>> world, assume that you probably carry a gun around and such. But
>>>>>>>> still, Canadian and American may not be different enough as
>>>>>>>> identities to compare to genders. I could try "Putin-sympathizer" or
>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you know, or ought to know, that that is untrue, calling me a
>>>>>>> putinista would be a lie. I would probably post in to contradict it,
>>>>>>> since it would be a lie that could damage my reputation, but I would not
>>>>>>> be all of a doodah. I think I would consider the source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
>>>>>
>>>>> You have joined PTD in using the word "lie" incorrectly.
>>>>>
>>>>> A lie is a statement that is made with full knowledge that it is
>>>>> untrue. Using "he" to refer to you is not a lie. Referring to you as
>>>>> a man is not a lie.
>>>>
>>>>No. You're taking my statement out of context.
>>>
>>> All context was retained.
>>
>>But that's not what "take out of context" means!
>
>> Ignoring that my "lie"
>>was an exact echo to CDB, that I didn't even bring up the concept of
>>"lying", is taking it out of context.
>
> I'm fully aware of how "take out of context" is used. It is used to
> mean "You took what I said to mean that what I said was what I said,
> but you shouldn't take it mean what I said."

That's a garble I won't try to unmix.
> You said "is a lie" and that does most certainly bring up the concept
> of "lying". Claiming it's an echo of what someone else has said does
> not make it acceptable.

That's not what "bring up" means. If I ask you if you want a beer, and
you say beer sounds good, you didn't bring up beer.
>> It doesn't matter whether the
>>context that you ignored in your statement was still visible to me. It
>>just makes it more obvious.
>>
>>>> I have joined CDB in the
>>>>above, echoing his usage. Me calling him Putin-sympathizer is certainly
>>>>no lie by your "proper" definition, because I don't know either way. I
>>>>can only trust his claim, or make guesses from other things he said, but
>>>>I don't know him well enough to be certain.
>>>
>>> Of course it's a lie. Claiming that you don't know someone well
>>> enough to not label them a Nazi, a serial killer, a pedophile, or a
>>> rapist is preposterous.
>>>
>>> But, OK, I'll play your game. You are a manly-man who is employed as
>>> as a male model and spokesman for Carhartt rugged outdoor wear and a
>>> former hockey player, known as an "enforcer", for the Quebec
>>> Nordiques.
>>>
>>> All the stuff you've posted in the past about your gender issues is a
>>> deliberate spoof campaign started as a bet at a TERF club meeting to
>>> see if you could convince the readers of this newsgroup of the
>>> authenticity of your claims.
>>>
>>> I can make this claim because I don't know you well enough to be
>>> certain it is not true, I can't trust your claims because I can't
>>> personally verify them, and I am thus able to make wild guesses.
>>>
>>> Is this how you want to play the game?
>>
>>I'll address that in my answer to CDB.
>>
>>>>> They both might be misrepresentations of how you see yourself, but
>>>>> they are not lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>>>>>>confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
>>>>>>"he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
>>>>>>group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
>>>>>>gender is fake.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is confusing about any of those statements?
>>>>
>>>>Really? I recently misinterpreted a headline as saying "Putin helping
>>>>Ukraine with weapons". Was it understandable? Perfectly. Was it
>>>>confusing? Absolutely, to me. But maybe your mind works differently.
>>>
>>> That's the best you can come up? What has it to do with my question?
>>
>>How is "confused" not the right word for when you hear a statement that
>>contradicts what you know?
>
> I frequently see/hear statements that contradict what I know, or -
> rather - what I think I know. They might lead me to re-evaluate what
> I think I know, but they don't confuse me.

Wasting space on "semantics".

>>More formally, cognitive dissonance. Holding
>>two ideas that contradict each other at the same time: "Putin leads a
>>war against Ukraine. Putin gives weapons to Ukraine."
>
> That was a poor example from the get-go. Those may be conflicting
> statements, but no one would both ideas.
>
>>or "Quinn is a man. Quinn wears bras."
>
> Those are not even conflicting statements. Just because they are not
> what one usually expects to see/hear doesn't mean that it would be
> confusing. They merely identify Quinn as one of those men who wears a
> bra, and it's well-known that some do. The shock value of that went
> to zero a long time ago.

On 2022-04-23 13:44, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 11:37:54 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:29:26 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 09:57:04 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:11:01 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 9:46:58 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 08:03:19 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of proving
>>>>>>>>> masculinity,
>>>>>>>> then you don't know the first thing on gender. You
>>>>>>>>> haven't reached the level of awareness of many a 6-year-old. You
>>>>>>>>> missed not only Gender 101, but also Feminism 101 (which your other
>>>>>>>>> remark below confirms, too.)
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have made prior comments about people "screwing up attributions".
>>>>>
>>>>> The above text was posted by Quinn, not by me and not by CDB. Quinn
>>>>> does not appear in the attributions.
>>>>
>>>> The text I posted at 10:03 (which for some reason your system
>>>> identifies as 7:03 PDT) replied _to you_ and responded to several
>>>> paragraphs you posted. Mentioning dogs on the sidewalk.
>>>>
>>>> Any disrupting of the attributions was by either Q or CDB, but why you
>>>> did not see the entire message, I cannot fathom.
>>>
>>> I saw the entire message, including the dogs on the sidewalk. The
>>
>> Then you lied about me quoting nothing you wrote.
>
> Petey, I know that recreational toking is now legal in New Jersey, but
> you seem to have overinduldged.
>
> No lie was written. I did not say you quoted nothing I wrote.
>
> I said, in case you can't make it out on the screen, "The above text
> was posted by Quinn, not by me and not by CDB". Are you too
> disoriented to understand what "the above text" refers to?
>
> The reason I directed the comment to the "above text" is that the text
> above contains statements that only Quinn would write. Neither CDB
> nor I would write such nonsense.
>
> Your attributions did not include Quinn.

Explain that to one of your houseplants. It would have the same effect.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 21:50:06 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>>>>>>>And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have joined PTD in using the word "lie" incorrectly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lie is a statement that is made with full knowledge that it is
>>>>>> untrue. Using "he" to refer to you is not a lie. Referring to you as
>>>>>> a man is not a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. You're taking my statement out of context.
>>>>
>>>> All context was retained.
>>>
>>>But that's not what "take out of context" means!
>>
>>> Ignoring that my "lie"
>>>was an exact echo to CDB, that I didn't even bring up the concept of
>>>"lying", is taking it out of context.
>>
>> I'm fully aware of how "take out of context" is used. It is used to
>> mean "You took what I said to mean that what I said was what I said,
>> but you shouldn't take it mean what I said."
>
>That's a garble I won't try to unmix.

I'll try to make it plain enough you to grasp. "You took my statement
out of context" means: "Yes, I made that statment, but I didn't mean
that you should take that statement to mean what was said in that
statement.".

>
>> You said "is a lie" and that does most certainly bring up the concept
>> of "lying". Claiming it's an echo of what someone else has said does
>> not make it acceptable.
>
>That's not what "bring up" means.

Of course it does. To "bring up" something is to bring it into the
conversation. You brought lying into the conversation with *your* use
of "lie" in your statement.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 21:50:06 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>>>>>>>I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>>>>>>>confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
>>>>>>>"he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
>>>>>>>group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
>>>>>>>gender is fake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is confusing about any of those statements?
>>>>>
>>>>>Really? I recently misinterpreted a headline as saying "Putin helping
>>>>>Ukraine with weapons". Was it understandable? Perfectly. Was it
>>>>>confusing? Absolutely, to me. But maybe your mind works differently.
>>>>
>>>> That's the best you can come up? What has it to do with my question?
>>>
>>>How is "confused" not the right word for when you hear a statement that
>>>contradicts what you know?
>>
>> I frequently see/hear statements that contradict what I know, or -
>> rather - what I think I know. They might lead me to re-evaluate what
>> I think I know, but they don't confuse me.
>
>Wasting space on "semantics".

It's a waste of space to state that what is contradictory is not
necessarily confusing? That it is possible to re-evaluate one's
thinking because information contradicting the conclusions of that
thinking is come across?

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 21:50:06 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>> Those are not even conflicting statements. Just because they are not
>> what one usually expects to see/hear doesn't mean that it would be
>> confusing. They merely identify Quinn as one of those men who wears a
>> bra, and it's well-known that some do. The shock value of that went
>> to zero a long time ago.
>
>That you bring up "shock value" shows that you live in a completely
>different world than me, mentally.

You'll have no argument from me on this.

> There's never been "shock value" in that for me.

It ain't all about you, Quinn. You don't have to live in a completely
different world to know that the idea of a man wearing a bra would
have been shocking at one time. Whatever you thought has nothing to
do with what the rest of society thought.

>
>But I'm not wearing a bra in the manner of a hypothetical group of "men
>who wear a bra" (maybe because they're overweight or have so-called
>"gynecomasty".) Wearing a bra is part of the woman things I do, and I do
>it just like women do.

What's hypothetical here? Fact: There are men who wear bras. Knowing
the "Why?" is not a factor in recognizing that there are men who do.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 4/23/2022 9:50 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * CDB:
>
>> On 4/22/2022 1:02 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * CDB:
>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> CDB:
>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>> * CDB:
>>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>>> CDB, the American:
>>>>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And if you still think it's about "a word", I
>>>>>>>>>>> guess you're a lost cause.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for making it clear that your "request"
>>>>>>>>>> is in fact a threat.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I have no idea where you get that from.
>>
>>>>>>>>> A threat of not talking to you any more? Well,
>>>>>>>>> thanks for valuing me that much.

>>>>>>>> I didn't say it was an effective threat.

>>>>>>> It still sees like a wrong usage to me. More obviously
>>>>>>> so than when my ex said I shouldn't threaten her with
>>>>>>> divorce, and I said that's not a "threat", because I
>>>>>>> wouldn't do it in order to hurt her, but to get myself
>>>>>>> out of harm's way.

>> I don't see how your motive for threatening your ex bears on the
>> question. A threat is a threat in any case.

> But a threat is not "an expression of intent to take whatever kind
> of action", but "an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury,
> or damage" (Merriam-Webster)

You have consistently maintained that it is the perception of the
recipient that counts in these matters, not that of the offender.

> Motive is implied.

>>>>>>>> What did you mean by "CDB, the American" up above?
>>>>>>>> Shall I act outraged? I have been taken for an
>>>>>>>> American many times, sometimes by people from other
>>>>>>>> parts of the world, sometimes by Americans. I have
>>>>>>>> never been bovvered.
>>
>>>>>>> It's supposed to be a closer match to the false
>>>>>>> attribution of an identity that's the subject of debate,
>>>>>>> with a term that's not objectionable on its own.
>>
>>>>>>> I do expect that it'd get annoying if it was repeated by
>>>>>>> various people with the regularity of pronouns, and even
>>>>>>> more so when people pick up on it and blame you for the
>>>>>>> havoc Americans wreak in the world, assume that you
>>>>>>> probably carry a gun around and such. But still, Canadian
>>>>>>> and American may not be different enough as identities to
>>>>>>> compare to genders. I could try "Putin-sympathizer" or
>>>>>>> something.
>>
>>>>>> Since you know, or ought to know, that that is untrue,
>>>>>> calling me a putinista would be a lie. I would probably
>>>>>> post in to contradict it, since it would be a lie that
>>>>>> could damage my reputation, but I would not be all of a
>>>>>> doodah. I think I would consider the source.
>>
>>>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie
>>>>> to me, because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal
>>>>> everyday sense (as opposed to medical or legal senses), which
>>>>> involves looking and acting like a man.
>>
>>>> What a piece of work you are!
>>
>>>>> I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads
>>>>> to some confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to
>>>>> the ladies' room", "he's looking for a new bra, over there"
>>>>> or "he's out with his lesbian group", but I actually kind of
>>>>> enjoy these, because they underline that gender is fake.
>>
>>>> Have I disappointed you, then, with my consistent use of your
>>>> preferred pronouns? My objection is still what it has always
>>>> been: I decline to be forced into something that I am
>>>> demonstrably willing to do out of courtesy or sympathy, or for
>>>> some other relatively inoffensive motive.
>>
>>>>>> You seem to be relevance-challenged in picking your
>>>>>> comparisons.
>>
>>>>> I won't be able to pick one you'll accept if you're not
>>>>> ready to.
>>
>>>> Have to get my mind right? Sure, Captain.
>>
>>>>>> You may not like some of the things I say, but IMO none of
>>>>>> them are untrue. I don't think you can credibly claim they
>>>>>> are, and I'm certain you can't say - credibly - that I know
>>>>>> they are.
>>
>>>>> Why should I believe what you claim about yourself? That's
>>>>> the main point I'm making here.
>>
>>>> Well, why didn't you say that was your main point?
>>
>>> With this specific comparison. Other comparisons made other
>>> points.
>>
>>>> In fact I am remarkably frank with this group; now that I'm old
>>>> I no longer see much point in lying, and doing that here would
>>>> be a little like cheating at solitaire.
>>
>>>> That being said, I have no mandate, and no wish, to make you
>>>> believe what I say. My "main point" is that you have no such
>>>> mandate either.
>>
>>> Sure. I can't make you believe what my legal sex registration is
>>> nor what my gender is. You chose to believe one but not the
>>> other. In any case, not believing me shows you don't think highly
>>> of me.
>>
>> In some respects, that is true. In some respects, I feel sorry for
>> you.
>>
>>> It should irk you to be called a Putin sympathizer when you're
>>> not one. Likewise, it irks me to be called a man when I'm not
>>> one, by my understanding of the word.
>>
>> I know who and what I am. The opinions of other people can't
>> change that. Try it yourself, some time.
>>
>>> I know you're using the word with a different definition, but
>>> that means you side with a worldview that is tied to my
>>> oppression, that makes bathroom laws and such possible. There's
>>> the parallel to the N-word you wouldn't see.
>>
>> Poor oppressed creature, with your own place and plenty to eat and
>> money to buy brassieres with! Can you imagine their suffering?
>> Some people don't jump when they says "jump".
>>
>>>>> Interestingly, if you classify me as a man, that is also
>>>>> solely based on my declarations, so I wonder how you pick
>>>>> which of my statements to accept and which to reject.
>>
>> You posted here for quite a long time as "Oliver". Then you
>> changed your mind, possibly considering that your privilege.

> Of course. And there were no people so intent on being nasty as to
> continue using the old name.

You wondered how I would pick. Your current declarations are one
choice; your original self-identification is another.

> But when it comes to pronouns, nastiness becomes the smaller issue
> to some people, in comparison with some misguided other value, about
> language or, more likely, their ideology of sex and gender.

You are going to have to make up your mind about offensiveness. If
someone's use of pronouns you dislike is nastiness, then you were
threatening your soon-to-be ex.
>
>>>> AFAICR, I have accepted your statements of fact; it's your
>>>> statements of claim that I don't accept

>>> This is where "disrespect" comes into play: you accepted what I
>>> reported others saying about me (by assigning me a gender based
>>> on my sex), but not my own opinion on my gender.

>> Your opinion of your gender is fine with me; fill your boots. I
>> prefer to classify people according to sex (please take note of the
>> next part) _either biological or demonstrated_. That is the custom
>> of most of humanity.

On 4/23/2022 9:47 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>> Quinn C <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>>> or "Quinn is a man. Quinn wears bras."

> If he has atypically large breasts, it may be advisable. If he
> doesn't, it's pointless. Men may have large breasts because of (a)
> obesity or (b) gynecomastia. ((a) is probably a lot more common.)

Unless they has changed markedly since getting their picture took, I
don't think Quinn is likely to be dealing with moobs. More likely, a
brassiere would be a cosmetic flourish, or else what has been called a
"training bra".

>> Those are not even conflicting statements. Just because they are
>> not what one usually expects to see/hear doesn't mean that it would
>> be confusing. They merely identify Quinn as one of those men who
>> wears a bra, and it's well-known that some do. The shock value of
>> that went to zero a long time ago.

> It was one of the better *Seinfeld* episodes -- Frank Constanza's
> (Jerry Stiller) latest get-rich-quick scheme.

On 4/24/2022 2:16 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>>> Those are not even conflicting statements. Just because they are
>>> not what one usually expects to see/hear doesn't mean that it
>>> would be confusing. They merely identify Quinn as one of those
>>> men who wears a bra, and it's well-known that some do. The shock
>>> value of that went to zero a long time ago.

>> That you bring up "shock value" shows that you live in a
>> completely different world than me, mentally.

> You'll have no argument from me on this.

>> There's never been "shock value" in that for me.

> It ain't all about you, Quinn. You don't have to live in a
> completely different world to know that the idea of a man wearing a
> bra would have been shocking at one time.

I wonder if Jedgar wore one under their ball gown.

> Whatever you thought has nothing to do with what the rest of society
> thought.

>> But I'm not wearing a bra in the manner of a hypothetical group of
>> "men who wear a bra" (maybe because they're overweight or have
>> so-called "gynecomasty".) Wearing a bra is part of the woman things
>> I do, and I do it just like women do.

> What's hypothetical here? Fact: There are men who wear bras.
> Knowing the "Why?" is not a factor in recognizing that there are men
> who do.

On 4/23/2022 9:52 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> CDB wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> CDB wrote:

>>>>>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a
>>>>>>> lie to me, because I'm not a man in what I consider the
>>>>>>> normal everyday sense (as opposed to medical or legal
>>>>>>> senses), which involves looking and acting like a man.
>>>>>> What a piece of work you are!
>>>>> Kindly continue the quotation.

>>>> I was saving that for the next round.

>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_a_piece_of_work_is_a_man#Stage_productions
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
Interesting stuff higher up about variants.

>>>> I tend to hear it in the Ragni/Rado version from _Hair_. I
>>>> have to remember to put the article back in if I'm quoting
>>>> Shakespeare.

>>> Meaning you didn't look at the discussion of variants at the top
>>> of the article.
>> Sure I did. The canonical (First Folio) version still has the
>> article, and I still hear the musical version.

> The creators of the First Folio were not editors in any modern sense.
> Moreover, corrections were being made throughout the printing process
> of the 500 or so copies they made -- someone could go to the Folger
> and check a couple hundred copies. (They probably haven't finished
> their project of scanning every page of every copy to try to arrive
> at "original intent"ish.) It's better without the "a."

True, IMO, but not relevant in context (see above). I would quote the
First Folio version.

> Whatever you thought has nothing to do with what the rest of society
> thought. It could just be given to Neil Armstrong to fix his gaffe.

>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fstxNFdQWZQ

On 4/23/2022 9:46 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of
>>> proving masculinity, then you don't know the first thing on
>>> gender. You haven't reached the level of awareness of many a
>>> 6-year-old. You missed not only Gender 101, but also Feminism 101
>>> (which your other remark below confirms, too.)

>> I did wish not to be mistaken for a girl when I was six. Now I
>> pee standing up or sitting down, as convenience dictates. It's
>> part of being a grownup.

> There is no proof around that I know of that supports this, but it's
> my assumption that human males have peed standing and human females
> have peed squatting since the first humans managed uprightness.

> The positions were the natural result of the ability to aim the
> flow, not convenience of access or the concept of masculinity. The
> males had the ability to aim the flow out and away so they could
> remain standing, and the females found that squatting left their
> lower limbs less damp.

The squatting position is natural for women because of their physiology,
as you say, and advisable in the absence of one of those devices Quinn
was talking about, but it's more a matter of convenience for men.

In my case, the convenience of merely unzipping is often outweighed by
the convenience of not having to stand while performing.

> Somewhere there might be a cave drawing that supports my theory, but
> I don't know of it.

I saw one on the back window of a pickup truck the other day. Bart
Simpson, I think.

> It is somewhat reassuring that the transqueer community, as
> represented here by Quinn, is as subject to perpetuating myths as
> the rest of us.

On 4/23/2022 10:03 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Quinn:

>>>> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of
>>>> proving masculinity,

> That might work (but I doubt it) for people who do a lot of peeing in
> public.

>>> then you don't know the first thing on gender. You
>>>> haven't reached the level of awareness of many a 6-year-old.
>>>> You missed not only Gender 101, but also Feminism 101 (which
>>>> your other remark below confirms, too.)

> I ignored this (addressed to me) when I came across it above. It's
> been 64 years since I was a 6-year-old, and the world has changed. My
> A. Philip Randolph story would be relevant here.

>>> I did wish not to be mistaken for a girl when I was six. Now I
>>> pee standing up or sitting down, as convenience dictates. It's
>>> part of being a grownup.

>> There is no proof around that I know of that supports this, but
>> it's my assumption that human males have peed standing and human
>> females have peed squatting since the first humans managed
>> uprightness.

>> The positions were the natural result of the ability to aim the
>> flow, not convenience of access or the concept of masculinity. The
>> males had the ability to aim the flow out and away so they could
>> remain standing, and the females found that squatting left their
>> lower limbs less damp.

> Doubtless most people have observed (willy-nilly) the different
> postures of male and female canines doing their business on the
> sidewalk.

Two of my male dogs stopped lifting the leg when they got old.
Convenience again. My brother had a female great Pyrenees who did lift
hers about half the time. A terrible bully she was, too.

On 4/24/2022 12:41 AM, lar3ryca wrote:
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>>> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is
>>>>>>>>>> an act of proving masculinity,
>>>>>>>>> then you don't know the first thing on gender. You
>>>>>>>>>> haven't reached the level of awareness of many a
>>>>>>>>>> 6-year-old. You missed not only Gender 101, but
>>>>>>>>>> also Feminism 101 (which your other remark below
>>>>>>>>>> confirms, too.)

>>>>>> You have made prior comments about people "screwing up
>>>>>> attributions".

>>>>>> The above text was posted by Quinn, not by me and not by
>>>>>> CDB. Quinn does not appear in the attributions.

>>>>> The text I posted at 10:03 (which for some reason your
>>>>> system identifies as 7:03 PDT) replied _to you_ and responded
>>>>> to several paragraphs you posted. Mentioning dogs on the
>>>>> sidewalk.

>>>>> Any disrupting of the attributions was by either Q or CDB,
>>>>> but why you did not see the entire message, I cannot fathom.

>>>> I saw the entire message, including the dogs on the sidewalk.
>>>> The

>>> Then you lied about me quoting nothing you wrote.

>> Petey, I know that recreational toking is now legal in New Jersey,
>> but you seem to have overinduldged.

>> No lie was written. I did not say you quoted nothing I wrote.

>> I said, in case you can't make it out on the screen, "The above
>> text was posted by Quinn, not by me and not by CDB". Are you too
>> disoriented to understand what "the above text" refers to? The
>> reason I directed the comment to the "above text" is that the text
>> above contains statements that only Quinn would write. Neither
>> CDB nor I would write such nonsense.

>> Your attributions did not include Quinn.

> Explain that to one of your houseplants. It would have the same
> effect.

I used to talk to Victoria, my philodendron. Not explanations but
encouragements.

--
Flower, damn you.