FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Rishi Sunak is Transphobic
Rishi Sunak is Transphobic
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's an ignorant pig. To not rush to apologise, after the grieving parents were in parliament, just shouts of the kind of filth in his party. " This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone remember Roland rat hahahaha " ... thats him  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tory Scum. Always have been always will be. Bevan put it far better than I ever could: "That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation"" Never thought I'd be reading an excerpt of a Bevan speech on a swinging website.
Life is full of surprises. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tory Scum. Always have been always will be. Bevan put it far better than I ever could: "That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation"" What a quote! Yasssss!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tory Scum. Always have been always will be. Bevan put it far better than I ever could: "That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation" Never thought I'd be reading an excerpt of a Bevan speech on a swinging website.
Life is full of surprises."Absolutely pal. I hate Tories. I wouldn't swing with any of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tory Scum. Always have been always will be. Bevan put it far better than I ever could: "That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation" What a quote! Yasssss!!! " My pleasure.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He is not apologising so would seem deliberately pandering to the transphobes. I draw a parallel on the hysteria around how dangerous Trans-women are with Dangerous Dogs. JK Rowling believes Trans women are men because she's been assaulted in the past. I've been bitten by a dog in my past and I cannot believe dogs should be pets. Some Trans women are predatory so deal with these predators, and not pander to broad brush transphobia. Transphobic hate crime has increased dramatically in recent years. I now don't go out if I can avoid it." I have been going out dressed about 2 years now and have never had a problem.. Joe public don't give a toss most don't even notice.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Tories were allegedly planning an apology, but Badenoch has tweeted something doubling down on it (anyone confirm? I don’t have Twitter these days). So now the apology is off. I remember the days that no matter how evil the Tories were, they were at least competent and capable of holding the line on a simple message "Badenoch tweeted: Every murder is a tragedy. None should be trivialised by political point-scoring. As a mother, I can imagine the trauma that Esther Ghey has endured. It was shameful of Starmer to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her grief. As Minister for Women and Equalities I've done all I can to ensure we have take the heat out of the debate on LGBT issues while being clear about our beliefs and principles. Keir Starmer’s behaviour today shows Labour are happy to weaponise this issue when it suits them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Tories were allegedly planning an apology, but Badenoch has tweeted something doubling down on it (anyone confirm? I don’t have Twitter these days). So now the apology is off. I remember the days that no matter how evil the Tories were, they were at least competent and capable of holding the line on a simple message
Badenoch tweeted:
Every murder is a tragedy. None should be trivialised by political point-scoring. As a mother, I can imagine the trauma that Esther Ghey has endured.
It was shameful of Starmer to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her grief.
As Minister for Women and Equalities I've done all I can to ensure we have take the heat out of the debate on LGBT issues while being clear about our beliefs and principles.
Keir Starmer’s behaviour today shows Labour are happy to weaponise this issue when it suits them.
"Sweet Jesus. It’s worse than I thought. Like Comical Ali, or Donald Trump
Cheers for the quote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Tories were allegedly planning an apology, but Badenoch has tweeted something doubling down on it (anyone confirm? I don’t have Twitter these days). So now the apology is off. I remember the days that no matter how evil the Tories were, they were at least competent and capable of holding the line on a simple message
Badenoch tweeted:
Every murder is a tragedy. None should be trivialised by political point-scoring. As a mother, I can imagine the trauma that Esther Ghey has endured.
It was shameful of Starmer to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her grief.
As Minister for Women and Equalities I've done all I can to ensure we have take the heat out of the debate on LGBT issues while being clear about our beliefs and principles.
Keir Starmer’s behaviour today shows Labour are happy to weaponise this issue when it suits them.
Sweet Jesus. It’s worse than I thought. Like Comical Ali, or Donald Trump
Cheers for the quote "I did read on ITV that the parents have supposedly been invited to meet Sunak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Frankly I thought I was going to vomit watching Starmer. Not sure I’ve ever seen such a slimy Brylcreemed worm, oozing faux moral opprobrium. Talking about “integrity” after years propping up Corbyn. " Whatever you thought of today and all of the normal party politics… To do what happened today with the parents of Brianna ghey there… the jibes followed by the kemi double down tweets which were apparently run through and authorised by no.10…… Pretty fucked up…… Sorry…. It just is Sometimes you just have to hold your hand up and say there is no way to defend the indefensible…… But the way people still try…… again… pretty fucked up! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He is not apologising so would seem deliberately pandering to the transphobes. I draw a parallel on the hysteria around how dangerous Trans-women are with Dangerous Dogs. JK Rowling believes Trans women are men because she's been assaulted in the past. I've been bitten by a dog in my past and I cannot believe dogs should be pets. Some Trans women are predatory so deal with these predators, and not pander to broad brush transphobia. Transphobic hate crime has increased dramatically in recent years. I now don't go out if I can avoid it." Having gender critical beliefs are protected under law and does not make someone a "transphobe" for having them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The man's a total idiot and not fit for purpose!" When Sunak became PM the BME community was actually quite proud that we now have representation. Before today, I was quite ambivalent about him. Now I dislike the man intensely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He is not apologising so would seem deliberately pandering to the transphobes. I draw a parallel on the hysteria around how dangerous Trans-women are with Dangerous Dogs. JK Rowling believes Trans women are men because she's been assaulted in the past. I've been bitten by a dog in my past and I cannot believe dogs should be pets. Some Trans women are predatory so deal with these predators, and not pander to broad brush transphobia. Transphobic hate crime has increased dramatically in recent years. I now don't go out if I can avoid it." I heard that he was apparently unaware that her parents were in parliament today when he made those comments. Find that hard to believe though. I share JK's views and believe transwomen are men. You don't need to have been a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault to hold this view. However, I think his comments in front of this child's parents were very insensitive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The man's a total idiot and not fit for purpose! When Sunak became PM the BME community was actually quite proud that we now have representation. Before today, I was quite ambivalent about him. Now I dislike the man intensely." why were they proud? He is a politician and like 95% of politicians he does what his owners tell him, any one who thinks they do stuff to make peoples lifes better must be walking around half asleep | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Frankly I thought I was going to vomit watching Starmer. Not sure I’ve ever seen such a slimy Brylcreemed worm, oozing faux moral opprobrium. Talking about “integrity” after years propping up Corbyn. Whatever you thought of today and all of the normal party politics… To do what happened today with the parents of Brianna ghey there… the jibes followed by the kemi double down tweets which were apparently run through and authorised by no.10…… Pretty fucked up…… Sorry…. It just is Sometimes you just have to hold your hand up and say there is no way to defend the indefensible…… But the way people still try…… again… pretty fucked up! "Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other time? He's playing you, and he's winning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Frankly I thought I was going to vomit watching Starmer. Not sure I’ve ever seen such a slimy Brylcreemed worm, oozing faux moral opprobrium. Talking about “integrity” after years propping up Corbyn. Whatever you thought of today and all of the normal party politics… To do what happened today with the parents of Brianna ghey there… the jibes followed by the kemi double down tweets which were apparently run through and authorised by no.10…… Pretty fucked up…… Sorry…. It just is Sometimes you just have to hold your hand up and say there is no way to defend the indefensible…… But the way people still try…… again… pretty fucked up!
Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other time?
He's playing the cards he was dealt"FTFY | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Frankly I thought I was going to vomit watching Starmer. Not sure I’ve ever seen such a slimy Brylcreemed worm, oozing faux moral opprobrium. Talking about “integrity” after years propping up Corbyn. Whatever you thought of today and all of the normal party politics… To do what happened today with the parents of Brianna ghey there… the jibes followed by the kemi double down tweets which were apparently run through and authorised by no.10…… Pretty fucked up…… Sorry…. It just is Sometimes you just have to hold your hand up and say there is no way to defend the indefensible…… But the way people still try…… again… pretty fucked up!
Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other time?
He's playing the cards he was dealt
FTFY"I said what I meant in the first place, no fixing needed  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . " For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. " Excuse me? I have never called Brianna "him". Brianna was a boy whose preffered pronouns were "she/her". She/her is what I would use because that's what she wanted, that doesn’t detract from the fact that she was a boy, both biologically and legally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. " I read the ruling from the court was the attack and subsequent death was primarily driven by sadistic tendencies, not because of trans. What has calling out the inability of Starmer to define a woman got to do with trans? Is the definition a woman an insult to trans people? Or has Starmer linking it back to the parents made it about trans? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. I read the ruling from the court was the attack and subsequent death was primarily driven by sadistic tendencies, not because of trans. What has calling out the inability of Starmer to define a woman got to do with trans? Is the definition a woman an insult to trans people? Or has Starmer linking it back to the parents made it about trans?" Sunak was taking the piss out of starmer. It was regarding starmer's prior remark of 99.9% of women don't have a penis. If we're going to debate definitions, Sunak has stated that a woman is a woman. At least starmer's definition was actually more defining:as an adult female. Point being you don't define an apple as an apple  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. I read the ruling from the court was the attack and subsequent death was primarily driven by sadistic tendencies, not because of trans. What has calling out the inability of Starmer to define a woman got to do with trans? Is the definition a woman an insult to trans people? Or has Starmer linking it back to the parents made it about trans? Sunak was taking the piss out of starmer. It was regarding starmer's prior remark of 99.9% of women don't have a penis. If we're going to debate definitions, Sunak has stated that a woman is a woman. At least starmer's definition was actually more defining:as an adult female. Point being you don't define an apple as an apple "There was no debate on definitions, it was a clear response to the amount of times Starmer has u-turned and his inability initially to be able to define a woman. Starmer deflected it onto the mother. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. I read the ruling from the court was the attack and subsequent death was primarily driven by sadistic tendencies, not because of trans. What has calling out the inability of Starmer to define a woman got to do with trans? Is the definition a woman an insult to trans people? Or has Starmer linking it back to the parents made it about trans? Sunak was taking the piss out of starmer. It was regarding starmer's prior remark of 99.9% of women don't have a penis. If we're going to debate definitions, Sunak has stated that a woman is a woman. At least starmer's definition was actually more defining:as an adult female. Point being you don't define an apple as an apple
There was no debate on definitions, it was a clear response to the amount of times Starmer has u-turned and his inability initially to be able to define a woman.
Starmer deflected it onto the mother.
"If you don't want an answer to your questions, don't ask the questions! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politics in this country often revolves. posh, sixth form common room type mild insults. It's an inappropriately timed and badly misjudged comment. But at least it's given people on Fab a chance to express how much they hate Tories. " Or brown nose Sunak cos he can do no wrong... It's all starmer m'lord | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. I read the ruling from the court was the attack and subsequent death was primarily driven by sadistic tendencies, not because of trans. What has calling out the inability of Starmer to define a woman got to do with trans? Is the definition a woman an insult to trans people? Or has Starmer linking it back to the parents made it about trans? Sunak was taking the piss out of starmer. It was regarding starmer's prior remark of 99.9% of women don't have a penis. If we're going to debate definitions, Sunak has stated that a woman is a woman. At least starmer's definition was actually more defining:as an adult female. Point being you don't define an apple as an apple
There was no debate on definitions, it was a clear response to the amount of times Starmer has u-turned and his inability initially to be able to define a woman.
Starmer deflected it onto the mother.
If you don't want an answer to your questions, don't ask the questions!"Oh dear... You like many others got sucked right into Starmer's deflection, and found yourselves outraged.
You could try listening to the exchange again without the urge to get offended and see if you can see how Starmer pounced to deflect Sunak's words onto the mother.
That was poor form, but seems to have got a result.. I expect this will have boosted the confidence and I imagine I, (not we) will see more of the same over the coming months.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. Excuse me? I have never called Brianna "him". Brianna was a boy whose preffered pronouns were "she/her". She/her is what I would use because that's what she wanted, that doesn’t detract from the fact that she was a boy, both biologically and legally. " thanks for clearing my lack of understanding of who brianna was, male or female. So she was a boy who preferred or wanted to be a girl? Shocking what happened. As for sunak, as much as I can't stand this present government I honestly don't think he was having a go at people like brianna. He was having a go at starmer and his inability to define what a female is plus his hundred and one u turns. Starmer brilliantly deflected sunak and used the situation and comments to score political points which is a terrible thing to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To the people who see me as a man, that is akin to the racist who say I am not British as I am not white. It is based on conservative thinking. Whether I have a Gender Identity Certificate or a British Passport, people will say they know me better and that I am neither British nor a Woman. I may not be born in the UK nor born a Woman but how I define myself is not for Sunak's amusement." Out of interest why do you think Sunak finds how you define yourself amusing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of interest why do you think Sunak finds how you define yourself amusing?" The smirk on his face? Don't get me wrong, I agree with Sunak that Starmer is flip flipping on trans issues, he is similarly clueless. But to make a joke about a subject close to my heart (I feel qualified to say) should best be avoided and there is no need to score points. It's just cheap politicking. A race to the bottom. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Out of interest why do you think Sunak finds how you define yourself amusing? The smirk on his face? Don't get me wrong, I agree with Sunak that Starmer is flip flipping on trans issues, he is similarly clueless. But to make a joke about a subject close to my heart (I feel qualified to say) should best be avoided and there is no need to score points. It's just cheap politicking. A race to the bottom. " He was smirking at Starmer as he had set himself up and walked into 30 plus things that he had flipped on. One of them being he could not define a woman and then flip flopped on that with another wooly answer, which you say you agree with. If you look at the exchange it was Starmer that then deflected that comment onto the mother of Brianna Ghey. That in my opinion was inexcusable and has caused this uproar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To the people who see me as a man, that is akin to the racist who say I am not British as I am not white. It is based on conservative thinking. Whether I have a Gender Identity Certificate or a British Passport, people will say they know me better and that I am neither British nor a Woman. I may not be born in the UK nor born a Woman but how I define myself is not for Sunak's amusement." Let me get this right?? If someone sees you as a man, they are the same as a racist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To the people who see me as a man, that is akin to the racist who say I am not British as I am not white. It is based on conservative thinking. Whether I have a Gender Identity Certificate or a British Passport, people will say they know me better and that I am neither British nor a Woman. I may not be born in the UK nor born a Woman but how I define myself is not for Sunak's amusement." You can define yourself however you like. My view that we remain the sex we are born until we draw our last breath, regardless of medical interventions or documents stating otherwise, is based in reality. Humans cannot change sex. To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. I read the ruling from the court was the attack and subsequent death was primarily driven by sadistic tendencies, not because of trans. What has calling out the inability of Starmer to define a woman got to do with trans? Is the definition a woman an insult to trans people? Or has Starmer linking it back to the parents made it about trans? Sunak was taking the piss out of starmer. It was regarding starmer's prior remark of 99.9% of women don't have a penis. If we're going to debate definitions, Sunak has stated that a woman is a woman. At least starmer's definition was actually more defining:as an adult female. Point being you don't define an apple as an apple
There was no debate on definitions, it was a clear response to the amount of times Starmer has u-turned and his inability initially to be able to define a woman.
Starmer deflected it onto the mother.
If you don't want an answer to your questions, don't ask the questions!
Oh dear...
You like many others got sucked right into Starmer's deflection, and found yourselves outraged.
You could try listening to the exchange again without the urge to get offended and see if you can see how Starmer pounced to deflect Sunak's words onto the mother.
That was poor form, but seems to have got a result.. I expect this will have boosted the confidence and I imagine I, (not we) will see more of the same over the coming months.
"You're wrong there. I actually thought starmer should have curtailed his indignation (he made his point then *cough* laboured on it). If Sunak had curtailed his gobbiness IE before getting to the 99% remark, he then could have saved face. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To the people who see me as a man, that is akin to the racist who say I am not British as I am not white. It is based on conservative thinking. Whether I have a Gender Identity Certificate or a British Passport, people will say they know me better and that I am neither British nor a Woman. I may not be born in the UK nor born a Woman but how I define myself is not for Sunak's amusement. You can define yourself however you like. My view that we remain the sex we are born until we draw our last breath, regardless of medical interventions or documents stating otherwise, is based in reality. Humans cannot change sex. To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. " Whether you believe it or not it amounts to transphobia and therefore akin to racism... Treating someone differently based on certain factors. It is NOT bullying or intimidating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. " I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is clear to me that some people don't understand the difference between "sex" and "gender"." For some you can include sexual orientation in that list too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. I read the ruling from the court was the attack and subsequent death was primarily driven by sadistic tendencies, not because of trans. What has calling out the inability of Starmer to define a woman got to do with trans? Is the definition a woman an insult to trans people? Or has Starmer linking it back to the parents made it about trans? Sunak was taking the piss out of starmer. It was regarding starmer's prior remark of 99.9% of women don't have a penis. If we're going to debate definitions, Sunak has stated that a woman is a woman. At least starmer's definition was actually more defining:as an adult female. Point being you don't define an apple as an apple
There was no debate on definitions, it was a clear response to the amount of times Starmer has u-turned and his inability initially to be able to define a woman.
Starmer deflected it onto the mother.
If you don't want an answer to your questions, don't ask the questions!
Oh dear...
You like many others got sucked right into Starmer's deflection, and found yourselves outraged.
You could try listening to the exchange again without the urge to get offended and see if you can see how Starmer pounced to deflect Sunak's words onto the mother.
That was poor form, but seems to have got a result.. I expect this will have boosted the confidence and I imagine I, (not we) will see more of the same over the coming months.
You're wrong there. I actually thought starmer should have curtailed his indignation (he made his point then *cough* laboured on it).
If Sunak had curtailed his gobbiness IE before getting to the 99% remark, he then could have saved face."It was part of Starmer's explanation was it not? Not Sunak's words, but Sunak saying he was still not clear... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is clear to me that some people don't understand the difference between "sex" and "gender". For some you can include sexual orientation in that list too." Yep pretty much. When I say I used to be G in LGBT but now I'm T and straight, I hear the cogs in their brains crunching and furrowed brows. I have always and will always be attracted to men, yet I am seen as a threat in women's toilets. So I always carry documents in my female name to help me prove I am not a predatory pervert. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is clear to me that some people don't understand the difference between "sex" and "gender". For some you can include sexual orientation in that list too. Yep pretty much. When I say I used to be G in LGBT but now I'm T and straight, I hear the cogs in their brains crunching and furrowed brows. I have always and will always be attracted to men, yet I am seen as a threat in women's toilets. So I always carry documents in my female name to help me prove I am not a predatory pervert." Do you have more problems with men or women, being confrontational towards you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The man's a total idiot and not fit for purpose! When Sunak became PM the BME community was actually quite proud that we now have representation. Before today, I was quite ambivalent about him. Now I dislike the man intensely." As a member of the BME community, I would say most bme were ambivalent, bme voters historically vote labour, a brown Tory, is just a Tory in different packaging. He's still Tory scum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you have more problems with men or women, being confrontational towards you?" Generally I get stares and scowls from men more. But the shouted-at incident was clearly in the ladies toilet by a woman. Why do you ask? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. I read the ruling from the court was the attack and subsequent death was primarily driven by sadistic tendencies, not because of trans. What has calling out the inability of Starmer to define a woman got to do with trans? Is the definition a woman an insult to trans people? Or has Starmer linking it back to the parents made it about trans? Sunak was taking the piss out of starmer. It was regarding starmer's prior remark of 99.9% of women don't have a penis. If we're going to debate definitions, Sunak has stated that a woman is a woman. At least starmer's definition was actually more defining:as an adult female. Point being you don't define an apple as an apple "How would you define ab apple? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. I read the ruling from the court was the attack and subsequent death was primarily driven by sadistic tendencies, not because of trans. What has calling out the inability of Starmer to define a woman got to do with trans? Is the definition a woman an insult to trans people? Or has Starmer linking it back to the parents made it about trans? Sunak was taking the piss out of starmer. It was regarding starmer's prior remark of 99.9% of women don't have a penis. If we're going to debate definitions, Sunak has stated that a woman is a woman. At least starmer's definition was actually more defining:as an adult female. Point being you don't define an apple as an apple
How would you define ab apple? "A round piece of fruit with edible skin. You? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. I read the ruling from the court was the attack and subsequent death was primarily driven by sadistic tendencies, not because of trans. What has calling out the inability of Starmer to define a woman got to do with trans? Is the definition a woman an insult to trans people? Or has Starmer linking it back to the parents made it about trans? Sunak was taking the piss out of starmer. It was regarding starmer's prior remark of 99.9% of women don't have a penis. If we're going to debate definitions, Sunak has stated that a woman is a woman. At least starmer's definition was actually more defining:as an adult female. Point being you don't define an apple as an apple
There was no debate on definitions, it was a clear response to the amount of times Starmer has u-turned and his inability initially to be able to define a woman.
Starmer deflected it onto the mother.
If you don't want an answer to your questions, don't ask the questions!
Oh dear...
You like many others got sucked right into Starmer's deflection, and found yourselves outraged.
You could try listening to the exchange again without the urge to get offended and see if you can see how Starmer pounced to deflect Sunak's words onto the mother.
That was poor form, but seems to have got a result.. I expect this will have boosted the confidence and I imagine I, (not we) will see more of the same over the coming months.
You're wrong there. I actually thought starmer should have curtailed his indignation (he made his point then *cough* laboured on it).
If Sunak had curtailed his gobbiness IE before getting to the 99% remark, he then could have saved face.
It was part of Starmer's explanation was it not? Not Sunak's words, but Sunak saying he was still not clear...
"I'm not understanding you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To the people who see me as a man, that is akin to the racist who say I am not British as I am not white. It is based on conservative thinking. Whether I have a Gender Identity Certificate or a British Passport, people will say they know me better and that I am neither British nor a Woman. I may not be born in the UK nor born a Woman but how I define myself is not for Sunak's amusement. You can define yourself however you like. My view that we remain the sex we are born until we draw our last breath, regardless of medical interventions or documents stating otherwise, is based in reality. Humans cannot change sex. To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. Whether you believe it or not it amounts to transphobia and therefore akin to racism... Treating someone differently based on certain factors. It is NOT bullying or intimidating." I don't treat people differently. I just don't see them as they see themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself?" How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. I read the ruling from the court was the attack and subsequent death was primarily driven by sadistic tendencies, not because of trans. What has calling out the inability of Starmer to define a woman got to do with trans? Is the definition a woman an insult to trans people? Or has Starmer linking it back to the parents made it about trans? Sunak was taking the piss out of starmer. It was regarding starmer's prior remark of 99.9% of women don't have a penis. If we're going to debate definitions, Sunak has stated that a woman is a woman. At least starmer's definition was actually more defining:as an adult female. Point being you don't define an apple as an apple
How would you define ab apple?
A round piece of fruit with edible skin. You?"This deserves its own thread, description/ definition and why it is so important | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter." The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is clear to me that some people don't understand the difference between "sex" and "gender"." Gender does not matter. It's irrelevant. Gender is how you see yourself and how you identify yourself. There is not a single person on this planet who sees you as you see yourself. This also applies to so called "cis" people. The gender that you, or any other individual, identify as is not the reason for the difference in size, strength, sporting ability or the likelihood of commiting a violent crime. Your sex determines these things. Which is why, when the issue is safeguarding and women's rights, sex is the only thing that matters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot?" Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she." Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it." Who's getting angry?  You asked me to conduct myself in a different way and I said no.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Common decency costs nothing, " Haven't you been arguing the opposite of this the whole time? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it. Who's getting angry? You asked me to conduct myself in a different way and I said no.
"I didn’t ask you to conduct yourself in a different way, I pointed out that the person you are replying to made it clear how she identifies and you had ignored that and common courtesy would have been nice. Sorry, you are right I did ask you to conduct yourself in a different way. I apologise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Common decency costs nothing, Haven't you been arguing the opposite of this the whole time?" I’m afraid your antagonism is starting to get the better of you. You are better than this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Common decency costs nothing, Haven't you been arguing the opposite of this the whole time? I’m afraid your antagonism is starting to get the better of you. You are better than this." Are you sure? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it." This is the emotional part of the forum you alluded to in another thread. The OP said if anyone doesn't recognise her gender then they're the same as a racist, it got emotional after that. Great way to either shut down a discussion or provoke emotional arguments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it. This is the emotional part of the forum you alluded to in another thread. The OP said if anyone doesn't recognise her gender then they're the same as a racist, it got emotional after that. Great way to either shut down a discussion or provoke emotional arguments. " It is, but the emotional drive is equal on both sides, it is like 2 children saying it is not fair, eventually there needs to be a compromise and understanding that they can’t have it their own way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it. This is the emotional part of the forum you alluded to in another thread. The OP said if anyone doesn't recognise her gender then they're the same as a racist, it got emotional after that. Great way to either shut down a discussion or provoke emotional arguments. It is, but the emotional drive is equal on both sides, it is like 2 children saying it is not fair, eventually there needs to be a compromise and understanding that they can’t have it their own way" Of course, I agree that eventually there needs to be compromise but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen here. At the end of the day, one cannot force another to obey, regardless of common courtesy. We see it especially in the trans debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it. This is the emotional part of the forum you alluded to in another thread. The OP said if anyone doesn't recognise her gender then they're the same as a racist, it got emotional after that. Great way to either shut down a discussion or provoke emotional arguments. It is, but the emotional drive is equal on both sides, it is like 2 children saying it is not fair, eventually there needs to be a compromise and understanding that they can’t have it their own way Of course, I agree that eventually there needs to be compromise but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen here. At the end of the day, one cannot force another to obey, regardless of common courtesy. We see it especially in the trans debate. " Absolutely can’t make them obey and wouldn’t want them to, the place would be as dull as dishwater… however there is a common decency, we all fall short now and again but to go out your way to be not decent is pushing water uphill, no benefit to be had | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it. This is the emotional part of the forum you alluded to in another thread. The OP said if anyone doesn't recognise her gender then they're the same as a racist, it got emotional after that. Great way to either shut down a discussion or provoke emotional arguments. It is, but the emotional drive is equal on both sides, it is like 2 children saying it is not fair, eventually there needs to be a compromise and understanding that they can’t have it their own way Of course, I agree that eventually there needs to be compromise but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen here. At the end of the day, one cannot force another to obey, regardless of common courtesy. We see it especially in the trans debate. Absolutely can’t make them obey and wouldn’t want them to, the place would be as dull as dishwater… however there is a common decency, we all fall short now and again but to go out your way to be not decent is pushing water uphill, no benefit to be had" I agree, I personally don't believe there's any benefit to be had. However, if someone views sex as binary then they are within their rights to stick to that. Gender is another matter, but it is a social construct and no one has to obey a social construct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it. This is the emotional part of the forum you alluded to in another thread. The OP said if anyone doesn't recognise her gender then they're the same as a racist, it got emotional after that. Great way to either shut down a discussion or provoke emotional arguments. It is, but the emotional drive is equal on both sides, it is like 2 children saying it is not fair, eventually there needs to be a compromise and understanding that they can’t have it their own way Of course, I agree that eventually there needs to be compromise but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen here. At the end of the day, one cannot force another to obey, regardless of common courtesy. We see it especially in the trans debate. Absolutely can’t make them obey and wouldn’t want them to, the place would be as dull as dishwater… however there is a common decency, we all fall short now and again but to go out your way to be not decent is pushing water uphill, no benefit to be had I agree, I personally don't believe there's any benefit to be had. However, if someone views sex as binary then they are within their rights to stick to that. Gender is another matter, but it is a social construct and no one has to obey a social construct. " 
I could argue that people who recognise that transwomen are men yet insist on using female pronouns for them "because they're decent" (unlike me obviously...) make absolutely no sense in their argument.
But I don't. Because I don't believe I have the right to police people's speech.
The OP is perfectly within their rights to identify as they wish and use whichever pronouns they like. And I'm completely down within my rights to disregard them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Common decency costs nothing, Haven't you been arguing the opposite of this the whole time? I’m afraid your antagonism is starting to get the better of you. You are better than this." What's this got to do with anything? You seem to be arguing that Sunak shouldn't bother with common decency. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Common decency costs nothing, Haven't you been arguing the opposite of this the whole time? I’m afraid your antagonism is starting to get the better of you. You are better than this. What's this got to do with anything? You seem to be arguing that Sunak shouldn't bother with common decency. " Not at all, you have once again got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I’m not going to burn any more time on your off the wall replies… toodles | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Common decency costs nothing, Haven't you been arguing the opposite of this the whole time? I’m afraid your antagonism is starting to get the better of you. You are better than this. What's this got to do with anything? You seem to be arguing that Sunak shouldn't bother with common decency. Not at all, you have once again got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I’m not going to burn any more time on your off the wall replies… toodles " No questions about rhubarb or the Chinese space programme? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it. This is the emotional part of the forum you alluded to in another thread. The OP said if anyone doesn't recognise her gender then they're the same as a racist, it got emotional after that. Great way to either shut down a discussion or provoke emotional arguments. It is, but the emotional drive is equal on both sides, it is like 2 children saying it is not fair, eventually there needs to be a compromise and understanding that they can’t have it their own way Of course, I agree that eventually there needs to be compromise but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen here. At the end of the day, one cannot force another to obey, regardless of common courtesy. We see it especially in the trans debate. Absolutely can’t make them obey and wouldn’t want them to, the place would be as dull as dishwater… however there is a common decency, we all fall short now and again but to go out your way to be not decent is pushing water uphill, no benefit to be had I agree, I personally don't believe there's any benefit to be had. However, if someone views sex as binary then they are within their rights to stick to that. Gender is another matter, but it is a social construct and no one has to obey a social construct.
I could argue that people who recognise that transwomen are men yet insist on using female pronouns for them "because they're decent" (unlike me obviously...) make absolutely no sense in their argument.
But I don't. Because I don't believe I have the right to police people's speech.
The OP is perfectly within their rights to identify as they wish and use whichever pronouns they like. And I'm completely down within my rights to disregard them."I said that in my very first post to you, you have your rights and opinions… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it. This is the emotional part of the forum you alluded to in another thread. The OP said if anyone doesn't recognise her gender then they're the same as a racist, it got emotional after that. Great way to either shut down a discussion or provoke emotional arguments. It is, but the emotional drive is equal on both sides, it is like 2 children saying it is not fair, eventually there needs to be a compromise and understanding that they can’t have it their own way Of course, I agree that eventually there needs to be compromise but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen here. At the end of the day, one cannot force another to obey, regardless of common courtesy. We see it especially in the trans debate. Absolutely can’t make them obey and wouldn’t want them to, the place would be as dull as dishwater… however there is a common decency, we all fall short now and again but to go out your way to be not decent is pushing water uphill, no benefit to be had I agree, I personally don't believe there's any benefit to be had. However, if someone views sex as binary then they are within their rights to stick to that. Gender is another matter, but it is a social construct and no one has to obey a social construct.
I could argue that people who recognise that transwomen are men yet insist on using female pronouns for them "because they're decent" (unlike me obviously...) make absolutely no sense in their argument.
But I don't. Because I don't believe I have the right to police people's speech.
The OP is perfectly within their rights to identify as they wish and use whichever pronouns they like. And I'm completely down within my rights to disregard them.
I said that in my very first post to you, you have your rights and opinions… "But you still asked me to rethink how I address transwomen. I haven't asked anyone else here to use different language when they speak about a trans person. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone remember Roland rat hahahaha " Yeeeaaahh!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it. This is the emotional part of the forum you alluded to in another thread. The OP said if anyone doesn't recognise her gender then they're the same as a racist, it got emotional after that. Great way to either shut down a discussion or provoke emotional arguments. It is, but the emotional drive is equal on both sides, it is like 2 children saying it is not fair, eventually there needs to be a compromise and understanding that they can’t have it their own way Of course, I agree that eventually there needs to be compromise but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen here. At the end of the day, one cannot force another to obey, regardless of common courtesy. We see it especially in the trans debate. Absolutely can’t make them obey and wouldn’t want them to, the place would be as dull as dishwater… however there is a common decency, we all fall short now and again but to go out your way to be not decent is pushing water uphill, no benefit to be had I agree, I personally don't believe there's any benefit to be had. However, if someone views sex as binary then they are within their rights to stick to that. Gender is another matter, but it is a social construct and no one has to obey a social construct.
I could argue that people who recognise that transwomen are men yet insist on using female pronouns for them "because they're decent" (unlike me obviously...) make absolutely no sense in their argument.
But I don't. Because I don't believe I have the right to police people's speech.
The OP is perfectly within their rights to identify as they wish and use whichever pronouns they like. And I'm completely down within my rights to disregard them.
I said that in my very first post to you, you have your rights and opinions…
But you still asked me to rethink how I address transwomen. I haven't asked anyone else here to use different language when they speak about a trans person.
"I also said you can decide to tread more softly, in terms of bull in a china shop or not, your choice of course. At the end of the day I lose nothing, or gain, this is not a hill I will die on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rushi has previous when it come to transgender,however who put politics on a sex site surely there’s better sites ??" I did start this thread on the Lounge section because I wanted people to walk a mile with me in my shoes. The Mod moved it to the Political section. As a trans woman, I feel qualified to call Sunak a Transphobe. Clearly a lot of (cis?) people feel they know differently. A lot of good points have been made, and I'm all too familiar with the TERF's arguments. I would confess to being a little bit depressed life for trans WOMEN is going to get more difficult. Trans MEN have an entirely different life journey, an easier one I would say. Oh and don't call me Shirley... ;o) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rushi has previous when it come to transgender,however who put politics on a sex site surely there’s better sites ?? I did start this thread on the Lounge section because I wanted people to walk a mile with me in my shoes. The Mod moved it to the Political section. As a trans woman, I feel qualified to call Sunak a Transphobe. Clearly a lot of (cis?) people feel they know differently. A lot of good points have been made, and I'm all too familiar with the TERF's arguments. I would confess to being a little bit depressed life for trans WOMEN is going to get more difficult. Trans MEN have an entirely different life journey, an easier one I would say. Oh and don't call me Shirley... ;o)" I think if you’re going to put up a post you will get views from a broad spectrum of people. I think lots of people need to remember that there is people who came from pre snowflake era. I don’t judge people and in regards your views on Rishi he has a right to not apologise and why does he need to because everyone is telling him to. This country and most of the western world has just went to soft. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nonsense, Starmer seized an opportunity and has made this what it is. Why hasn't he a deal of it any other . For everything the parents have been through… with the type of crime that happened and why it happened For you to continually specifically keep using the term “him” is really disrespectful at best and shamefully callous at it’s worst Although we don’t always agree I have a certain amount of respect for you say, but this time….. pretty fucked up! No need to really keep labouring the point….. I read the ruling from the court was the attack and subsequent death was primarily driven by sadistic tendencies, not because of trans. What has calling out the inability of Starmer to define a woman got to do with trans? Is the definition a woman an insult to trans people? Or has Starmer linking it back to the parents made it about trans? Sunak was taking the piss out of starmer. It was regarding starmer's prior remark of 99.9% of women don't have a penis. If we're going to debate definitions, Sunak has stated that a woman is a woman. At least starmer's definition was actually more defining:as an adult female. Point being you don't define an apple as an apple
How would you define ab apple?
A round piece of fruit with edible skin. You?"I guess 80% of fruit can now bevrenamed as apples then.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To compare this to racism is ridiculous and also a cheap shot. Banding those terms about is a bullying tactic and used to intimidate people. I have been shouted at in women's toilets - I finished washing my hands and left quietly. It was a traumatic experience. People who know me, know I am anything but intimidating. The Windrush saga was about Black people who have lived in the UK all their lives and told they are not British and should leave. They feel British as much as I feel I am a woman. To say that I am not is suggesting you know me better than I know myself? How do you not know that the woman who was shouting at you had not experienced some kind of trauma at the hands of a man hence her outburst? (Not excusing any behaviour that was violent btw). If I encountered a man in a woman's toilet, depending on his size and demeanour I may say something. But I'd most likely leave because I wouldn't feel comfortable. Nor would my 13yr old daughter. The person you are replying to made it clear she identifies as a woman, courtesy would have prevented you from referring to her as a man. I believe you have every right to question but maybe with a lighter foot? Don't tell me how to think or address people on the forum. I have been direct but not abusive and consistent in my language. Given the points I've made so far, it would make absolutely no sense for me to address a transwoman/man as she. Common decency costs nothing, and you telling me not to tell you how to address people is somewhat ironic, seeing you got angry about it. This is the emotional part of the forum you alluded to in another thread. The OP said if anyone doesn't recognise her gender then they're the same as a racist, it got emotional after that. Great way to either shut down a discussion or provoke emotional arguments. It is, but the emotional drive is equal on both sides, it is like 2 children saying it is not fair, eventually there needs to be a compromise and understanding that they can’t have it their own way Of course, I agree that eventually there needs to be compromise but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen here. At the end of the day, one cannot force another to obey, regardless of common courtesy. We see it especially in the trans debate. Absolutely can’t make them obey and wouldn’t want them to, the place would be as dull as dishwater… however there is a common decency, we all fall short now and again but to go out your way to be not decent is pushing water uphill, no benefit to be had I agree, I personally don't believe there's any benefit to be had. However, if someone views sex as binary then they are within their rights to stick to that. Gender is another matter, but it is a social construct and no one has to obey a social construct.
I could argue that people who recognise that transwomen are men yet insist on using female pronouns for them "because they're decent" (unlike me obviously...) make absolutely no sense in their argument.
But I don't. Because I don't believe I have the right to police people's speech.
The OP is perfectly within their rights to identify as they wish and use whichever pronouns they like. And I'm completely down within my rights to disregard them.
I said that in my very first post to you, you have your rights and opinions…
But you still asked me to rethink how I address transwomen. I haven't asked anyone else here to use different language when they speak about a trans person.
I also said you can decide to tread more softly, in terms of bull in a china shop or not, your choice of course.
At the end of the day I lose nothing, or gain, this is not a hill I will die on"The fact that you, as a man, lose nothing is the very reason why you just don't get the significance of language in this debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rushi has previous when it come to transgender,however who put politics on a sex site surely there’s better sites ?? I did start this thread on the Lounge section because I wanted people to walk a mile with me in my shoes. The Mod moved it to the Political section. As a trans woman, I feel qualified to call Sunak a Transphobe. Clearly a lot of (cis?) people feel they know differently. A lot of good points have been made, and I'm all too familiar with the TERF's arguments. I would confess to being a little bit depressed life for trans WOMEN is going to get more difficult. Trans MEN have an entirely different life journey, an easier one I would say. Oh and don't call me Shirley... ;o)" I don't identify as a TERF (not being facetious). Wouldn't even necessarily call myself a feminist to be honest. As biological women, the presence of transmen in men's spaces does not present the same issues or potential risks as transwomen in women's spaces. I'd still argue that men have just as much right to single sex spaces. A lot of gay men feel just as strongly about this as I do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rushi has previous when it come to transgender,however who put politics on a sex site surely there’s better sites ?? I did start this thread on the Lounge section because I wanted people to walk a mile with me in my shoes. The Mod moved it to the Political section. As a trans woman, I feel qualified to call Sunak a Transphobe. Clearly a lot of (cis?) people feel they know differently. A lot of good points have been made, and I'm all too familiar with the TERF's arguments. I would confess to being a little bit depressed life for trans WOMEN is going to get more difficult. Trans MEN have an entirely different life journey, an easier one I would say. Oh and don't call me Shirley... ;o) I don't identify as a TERF (not being facetious). Wouldn't even necessarily call myself a feminist to be honest. As biological women, the presence of transmen in men's spaces does not present the same issues or potential risks as transwomen in women's spaces. I'd still argue that men have just as much right to single sex spaces. A lot of gay men feel just as strongly about this as I do." I have to admit that I haven’t frequented nightclubs for some years, but when I did in my younger days it was quite common for women to get bored standing in line in the long queue outside the women’s toilets and burst into the men’s toilets to use those instead. It always made me feel very uncomfortable but of course different standards were applied. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fascinating discussion (not Sunak and Starmer scoring points - the trans discussion). Was going to stay out of it as total minefield but…I can’t ass too interesting. I am way out of my comfort zone here and have no first hand knowledge only observations as a human being, in a supposed liberal swinging/fetish lifestyle, and with a child who feels like they are constantly walking on eggshells. So I want to be clear that I mean no offence to anyone and if I still end up offending be assured it was not out of spite or a deliberate act. Just a middle aged man struggling to keep up with a highly complex topic. In my opinion a transwoman is not a woman. She is a transwoman! There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a transwoman and I 100% support anyone’s rights to identify as such. However, while a person born male can have surgery and hormone treatment, counselling (if required), and live their life as a woman, they cannot change their biological sex. You are either XX or XY chromosomes. I know there will be a minuscule number of outliers, but they are exceptionally rare. I wholeheartedly believe the vast majority of people who do not identify as the sex they were born are genuine and face many life challenges which for me, makes them very brave and I sincerely wish them well. However, as in all walks of life, there are also bad actors, wrong’uns, fakers etc. The actions or threat posed by these folks skews all sensible discussion because the potential impact of their actions can be severe. One example being the person who changed gender while in prison to attempt to be moved to a woman’s prison (as I recall he, still a “he” in this person’s case IMO, had r@ped women in the past hence prison). One of the most obvious manifestations of the challenges around accepting transpeople (mostly transwoman/people who were born male) is in sport because it is clearly in view how the physiology of being born make confers advantage over woman in most sports. People born male who have gone through puberty are stronger, faster, bigger, have larger hearts, bigger lung capacity, higher bone density, stronger muscles, longer limbs, a better aligned/narrower pelvis etc. No amount of testosterone or hormone treatment or surgery can undo those physical advantages… And yet when women cry foul of transwomen being allowed in their category/sport, they are often labelled as transphobes. Headlines full of incorrect hyperbole accuse sporting governing bodies of “banning trans athlete” or “stopping transpeople from taking part in sport” which is actually nonsense. Transpeople (and lets be honest we are talking about Transwomen) can still take part un sport but in the category they were born into or have a trans category. I don’t see that as discrimination. I see that as fairness in sport. But the transzealots see this as the beliefs of TERFs and phobes etc. And yes there will also be bad actors in those camps with agendas. But I think most people are “live and let live but keep things fair”." Spot on. Very well put. We can be respectful and accepting without having to swallow the entire zealotry without being called transphobes. We can celebrate diversity and be supportive, make accommodations and fight bigotry, but are entitled to our own views of reality. The whole point of being liberal is respecting the views and actions of others, not forcing conformity. Labelling generally tolerant people as something because they don't see wholly eye to eye with a group is a great way to alienate them. Be respectful, live and let live. Call out bigotry when you see it, but don't force opinions onto people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fascinating discussion (not Sunak and Starmer scoring points - the trans discussion). Was going to stay out of it as total minefield but…I can’t ass too interesting. I am way out of my comfort zone here and have no first hand knowledge only observations as a human being, in a supposed liberal swinging/fetish lifestyle, and with a child who feels like they are constantly walking on eggshells. So I want to be clear that I mean no offence to anyone and if I still end up offending be assured it was not out of spite or a deliberate act. Just a middle aged man struggling to keep up with a highly complex topic. In my opinion a transwoman is not a woman. She is a transwoman! There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a transwoman and I 100% support anyone’s rights to identify as such. However, while a person born male can have surgery and hormone treatment, counselling (if required), and live their life as a woman, they cannot change their biological sex. You are either XX or XY chromosomes. I know there will be a minuscule number of outliers, but they are exceptionally rare. I wholeheartedly believe the vast majority of people who do not identify as the sex they were born are genuine and face many life challenges which for me, makes them very brave and I sincerely wish them well. However, as in all walks of life, there are also bad actors, wrong’uns, fakers etc. The actions or threat posed by these folks skews all sensible discussion because the potential impact of their actions can be severe. One example being the person who changed gender while in prison to attempt to be moved to a woman’s prison (as I recall he, still a “he” in this person’s case IMO, had r@ped women in the past hence prison). One of the most obvious manifestations of the challenges around accepting transpeople (mostly transwoman/people who were born male) is in sport because it is clearly in view how the physiology of being born make confers advantage over woman in most sports. People born male who have gone through puberty are stronger, faster, bigger, have larger hearts, bigger lung capacity, higher bone density, stronger muscles, longer limbs, a better aligned/narrower pelvis etc. No amount of testosterone or hormone treatment or surgery can undo those physical advantages… And yet when women cry foul of transwomen being allowed in their category/sport, they are often labelled as transphobes. Headlines full of incorrect hyperbole accuse sporting governing bodies of “banning trans athlete” or “stopping transpeople from taking part in sport” which is actually nonsense. Transpeople (and lets be honest we are talking about Transwomen) can still take part un sport but in the category they were born into or have a trans category. I don’t see that as discrimination. I see that as fairness in sport. But the transzealots see this as the beliefs of TERFs and phobes etc. And yes there will also be bad actors in those camps with agendas. But I think most people are “live and let live but keep things fair”." Well said, the last paragraph is so spot on.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fascinating discussion (not Sunak and Starmer scoring points - the trans discussion). Was going to stay out of it as total minefield but…I can’t ass too interesting. I am way out of my comfort zone here and have no first hand knowledge only observations as a human being, in a supposed liberal swinging/fetish lifestyle, and with a child who feels like they are constantly walking on eggshells. So I want to be clear that I mean no offence to anyone and if I still end up offending be assured it was not out of spite or a deliberate act. Just a middle aged man struggling to keep up with a highly complex topic. In my opinion a transwoman is not a woman. She is a transwoman! There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a transwoman and I 100% support anyone’s rights to identify as such. However, while a person born male can have surgery and hormone treatment, counselling (if required), and live their life as a woman, they cannot change their biological sex. You are either XX or XY chromosomes. I know there will be a minuscule number of outliers, but they are exceptionally rare. I wholeheartedly believe the vast majority of people who do not identify as the sex they were born are genuine and face many life challenges which for me, makes them very brave and I sincerely wish them well. However, as in all walks of life, there are also bad actors, wrong’uns, fakers etc. The actions or threat posed by these folks skews all sensible discussion because the potential impact of their actions can be severe. One example being the person who changed gender while in prison to attempt to be moved to a woman’s prison (as I recall he, still a “he” in this person’s case IMO, had r@ped women in the past hence prison). One of the most obvious manifestations of the challenges around accepting transpeople (mostly transwoman/people who were born male) is in sport because it is clearly in view how the physiology of being born make confers advantage over woman in most sports. People born male who have gone through puberty are stronger, faster, bigger, have larger hearts, bigger lung capacity, higher bone density, stronger muscles, longer limbs, a better aligned/narrower pelvis etc. No amount of testosterone or hormone treatment or surgery can undo those physical advantages… And yet when women cry foul of transwomen being allowed in their category/sport, they are often labelled as transphobes. Headlines full of incorrect hyperbole accuse sporting governing bodies of “banning trans athlete” or “stopping transpeople from taking part in sport” which is actually nonsense. Transpeople (and lets be honest we are talking about Transwomen) can still take part un sport but in the category they were born into or have a trans category. I don’t see that as discrimination. I see that as fairness in sport. But the transzealots see this as the beliefs of TERFs and phobes etc. And yes there will also be bad actors in those camps with agendas. But I think most people are “live and let live but keep things fair”. Spot on. Very well put. We can be respectful and accepting without having to swallow the entire zealotry without being called transphobes. We can celebrate diversity and be supportive, make accommodations and fight bigotry, but are entitled to our own views of reality. The whole point of being liberal is respecting the views and actions of others, not forcing conformity. Labelling generally tolerant people as something because they don't see wholly eye to eye with a group is a great way to alienate them. Be respectful, live and let live. Call out bigotry when you see it, but don't force opinions onto people." To both posters
I'd go a little further on the be respectful, by using the pronouns the person asks of you. If you cannot, then use the person's name at all times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fascinating discussion (not Sunak and Starmer scoring points - the trans discussion). Was going to stay out of it as total minefield but…I can’t ass too interesting. I am way out of my comfort zone here and have no first hand knowledge only observations as a human being, in a supposed liberal swinging/fetish lifestyle, and with a child who feels like they are constantly walking on eggshells. So I want to be clear that I mean no offence to anyone and if I still end up offending be assured it was not out of spite or a deliberate act. Just a middle aged man struggling to keep up with a highly complex topic. In my opinion a transwoman is not a woman. She is a transwoman! There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a transwoman and I 100% support anyone’s rights to identify as such. However, while a person born male can have surgery and hormone treatment, counselling (if required), and live their life as a woman, they cannot change their biological sex. You are either XX or XY chromosomes. I know there will be a minuscule number of outliers, but they are exceptionally rare. I wholeheartedly believe the vast majority of people who do not identify as the sex they were born are genuine and face many life challenges which for me, makes them very brave and I sincerely wish them well. However, as in all walks of life, there are also bad actors, wrong’uns, fakers etc. The actions or threat posed by these folks skews all sensible discussion because the potential impact of their actions can be severe. One example being the person who changed gender while in prison to attempt to be moved to a woman’s prison (as I recall he, still a “he” in this person’s case IMO, had r@ped women in the past hence prison). One of the most obvious manifestations of the challenges around accepting transpeople (mostly transwoman/people who were born male) is in sport because it is clearly in view how the physiology of being born make confers advantage over woman in most sports. People born male who have gone through puberty are stronger, faster, bigger, have larger hearts, bigger lung capacity, higher bone density, stronger muscles, longer limbs, a better aligned/narrower pelvis etc. No amount of testosterone or hormone treatment or surgery can undo those physical advantages… And yet when women cry foul of transwomen being allowed in their category/sport, they are often labelled as transphobes. Headlines full of incorrect hyperbole accuse sporting governing bodies of “banning trans athlete” or “stopping transpeople from taking part in sport” which is actually nonsense. Transpeople (and lets be honest we are talking about Transwomen) can still take part un sport but in the category they were born into or have a trans category. I don’t see that as discrimination. I see that as fairness in sport. But the transzealots see this as the beliefs of TERFs and phobes etc. And yes there will also be bad actors in those camps with agendas. But I think most people are “live and let live but keep things fair”. Spot on. Very well put. We can be respectful and accepting without having to swallow the entire zealotry without being called transphobes. We can celebrate diversity and be supportive, make accommodations and fight bigotry, but are entitled to our own views of reality. The whole point of being liberal is respecting the views and actions of others, not forcing conformity. Labelling generally tolerant people as something because they don't see wholly eye to eye with a group is a great way to alienate them. Be respectful, live and let live. Call out bigotry when you see it, but don't force opinions onto people. To both posters
I'd go a little further on the be respectful, by using the pronouns the person asks of you. If you cannot, then use the person's name at all times. "I'll tend to use the name if I can. If I'm pushed and asked the question of which pronoun I would use then I'll be honest and say the actual correct sex pronouns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" To both posters
I'd go a little further on the be respectful, by using the pronouns the person asks of you. If you cannot, then use the person's name at all times. "100% Just be decent. Avoid pronouns if you want, but show some respect for the human behind the pronoun. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is a lot of anger contained in some of you. As Viktor Frankl taught us, no matter what others do to you, you have the mental control to rise above it. Because such anger is corrosive and can lead to a difficult life. That is how I deal with such hate directed towards me." I’m not sure there is as much anger as you perceive. I think most people are a bit bemused and “meh” about it. There are some vocal people on all sides of any debate but unless something directly affects or impacts you and yours, most people are kind of not overly bothered in my experience. Those people can be totally confused, try to be empathetic (not always easy), and sympathetic (which may feel patronising) but the mistake all extremist make is to attack people who do not feel passionately about their cause or ask questions (which are misconstrued as challenging their position). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure there is as much anger as you perceive. I think most people are a bit bemused and “meh” about it. There are some vocal people on all sides of any debate but unless something directly affects or impacts you and yours, most people are kind of not overly bothered in my experience. Those people can be totally confused, try to be empathetic (not always easy), and sympathetic (which may feel patronising) but the mistake all extremist make is to attack people who do not feel passionately about their cause or ask questions (which are misconstrued as challenging their position). " Your position of moderation is... "normal" I guess. But as I have to navigate trans hate / discrimination / un-conscious bias in my life, then I guess I don't have the luxury of "meh". If you took the time to scan through this very long thread, you will quickly see the extremists. I see a lot of this bile and spitting aimed at Trans Women. It must be difficult being them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is a lot of anger contained in some of you. As Viktor Frankl taught us, no matter what others do to you, you have the mental control to rise above it. Because such anger is corrosive and can lead to a difficult life. That is how I deal with such hate directed towards me. I’m not sure there is as much anger as you perceive. I think most people are a bit bemused and “meh” about it. There are some vocal people on all sides of any debate but unless something directly affects or impacts you and yours, most people are kind of not overly bothered in my experience. Those people can be totally confused, try to be empathetic (not always easy), and sympathetic (which may feel patronising) but the mistake all extremist make is to attack people who do not feel passionately about their cause or ask questions (which are misconstrued as challenging their position). " Disagreeing with an individual's perception of themself is now extremism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure there is as much anger as you perceive. I think most people are a bit bemused and “meh” about it. There are some vocal people on all sides of any debate but unless something directly affects or impacts you and yours, most people are kind of not overly bothered in my experience. Those people can be totally confused, try to be empathetic (not always easy), and sympathetic (which may feel patronising) but the mistake all extremist make is to attack people who do not feel passionately about their cause or ask questions (which are misconstrued as challenging their position). Your position of moderation is... "normal" I guess. But as I have to navigate trans hate / discrimination / un-conscious bias in my life, then I guess I don't have the luxury of "meh". If you took the time to scan through this very long thread, you will quickly see the extremists. I see a lot of this bile and spitting aimed at Trans Women. It must be difficult being them." You do and your journey is not something I personally would want to contend with. But that doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong or phobic or TERF because nobody has the monopoly on right or wrong. As I have said, there are extremists on all sides of any argument. There are also moderates and people who are not that engaged or bothered. I note you have not fully transitioned yet. Can I ask if you are comfortable in a female changing room being naked? Do you understand why a cis female may be uncomfortable being naked in front of you? If that female is say 12 or 13, does that change anything? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is a lot of anger contained in some of you. As Viktor Frankl taught us, no matter what others do to you, you have the mental control to rise above it. Because such anger is corrosive and can lead to a difficult life. That is how I deal with such hate directed towards me. I’m not sure there is as much anger as you perceive. I think most people are a bit bemused and “meh” about it. There are some vocal people on all sides of any debate but unless something directly affects or impacts you and yours, most people are kind of not overly bothered in my experience. Those people can be totally confused, try to be empathetic (not always easy), and sympathetic (which may feel patronising) but the mistake all extremist make is to attack people who do not feel passionately about their cause or ask questions (which are misconstrued as challenging their position). Disagreeing with an individual's perception of themself is now extremism." No I don’t think it is but then my post was not about you or any other poster in this thread, it was about the topic generally which was why my OP was new and not a reply+quote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure there is as much anger as you perceive. I think most people are a bit bemused and “meh” about it. There are some vocal people on all sides of any debate but unless something directly affects or impacts you and yours, most people are kind of not overly bothered in my experience. Those people can be totally confused, try to be empathetic (not always easy), and sympathetic (which may feel patronising) but the mistake all extremist make is to attack people who do not feel passionately about their cause or ask questions (which are misconstrued as challenging their position). Your position of moderation is... "normal" I guess. But as I have to navigate trans hate / discrimination / un-conscious bias in my life, then I guess I don't have the luxury of "meh". If you took the time to scan through this very long thread, you will quickly see the extremists. I see a lot of this bile and spitting aimed at Trans Women. It must be difficult being them." There is far more 'extremism' directed towards Rishi Sunak on this thread than there is towards you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is far more 'extremism' directed towards Rishi Sunak on this thread than there is towards you "Thank you.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If that female is say 12 or 13, does that change anything?" No not at all... If I have a bit of grizzle between my legs, it's just that... I may have been born a male, but I'm too female to use a body part as a weapon... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If that female is say 12 or 13, does that change anything? No not at all... If I have a bit of grizzle between my legs, it's just that... I may have been born a male, but I'm too female to use a body part as a weapon..." That "grizzle" is male genitalia. There's been a lot of chat about being respectful and common decency on this thread. Outrage over language and pronouns.... Where's the respect and decency for the 12yr old girl who feels confused and frightened by the sight of a fully grown man in what she thought was a female space? Where's the outrage for her? You are not the vulnerable person in this situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If that female is say 12 or 13, does that change anything? No not at all... If I have a bit of grizzle between my legs, it's just that... I may have been born a male, but I'm too female to use a body part as a weapon..." The youngster may perceive differently. In this case it's not your perception that matters. Tbh the only occasion I can see this happen is in swimming pool changing areas. And unless you go get the op, you must use cubicles. I can imagine no scenario where anyone in female toilets should see your or you their genitalia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If that female is say 12 or 13, does that change anything? No not at all... If I have a bit of grizzle between my legs, it's just that... I may have been born a male, but I'm too female to use a body part as a weapon... That "grizzle" is male genitalia. There's been a lot of chat about being respectful and common decency on this thread. Outrage over language and pronouns.... Where's the respect and decency for the 12yr old girl who feels confused and frightened by the sight of a fully grown man in what she thought was a female space? Where's the outrage for her? You are not the vulnerable person in this situation. " Agreed after calling out common decency, it goes both ways!! I'm seeing an assumption and expectation to comply, with little consideration to the impact to others from the op in their last post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If that female is say 12 or 13, does that change anything? No not at all... If I have a bit of grizzle between my legs, it's just that... I may have been born a male, but I'm too female to use a body part as a weapon..." Others have already replied but I will just add that you made my question about you rather than the girl. I think that is the root of much of the anger the topic generates. It links to a general sense of entitlement that pervades many areas of society and a “I matter more than you/others” attitude. But for me, as with the point on sport, why is it fair that your (not YOU, but “one” I hope you understand) demands for inclusion potentially negatively impact on somebody else? It doesn’t matter that you are only attracted to men and your penis is not a “threat” to this hypothetical young girl, it is that this girl should not be seeing a penis in a female space. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject." I disagree. This website provides plenty of examples of transwomen who could easily pass as cis women when clothed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject. I disagree. This website provides plenty of examples of transwomen who could easily pass as cis women when clothed. " In pictures maybe. With the help of filters, underwear, make up and certain poses, most people can significantly change what they look like. How many times has a man or woman commented on here that they met someone IRL and they looked bugger all like their pics. The camera does lie. When met in person and you see the overall frame, hand size, jawline, gait etc, it's usually easily to spot a man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject." I have to agree really, the amount of times you see a bloke wondering about dressed as a lady and it's so bloody obvious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject. I have to agree really, the amount of times you see a bloke wondering about dressed as a lady and it's so bloody obvious. " And I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with that. He can do what he likes and should be left in peace to do so. In most day to day situations in won't matter. But if he's trying to gain access to a a female only space, that's where the line should be drawn. I'm not a mind reader and can tell if he's a "genuine" transwoman with no ill intention or a guy who's looking to assault me. I just see a man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject. I disagree. This website provides plenty of examples of transwomen who could easily pass as cis women when clothed. In pictures maybe. With the help of filters, underwear, make up and certain poses, most people can significantly change what they look like. How many times has a man or woman commented on here that they met someone IRL and they looked bugger all like their pics. The camera does lie. When met in person and you see the overall frame, hand size, jawline, gait etc, it's usually easily to spot a man." I still disagree. Of course what you say applies but it is not a universal truth. Having been active on the fetish scene for many years (not much recently) we met and chatted with many TS in clubs who it would have been difficult without close scrutiny to determine if born male. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject. I disagree. This website provides plenty of examples of transwomen who could easily pass as cis women when clothed. In pictures maybe. With the help of filters, underwear, make up and certain poses, most people can significantly change what they look like. How many times has a man or woman commented on here that they met someone IRL and they looked bugger all like their pics. The camera does lie. When met in person and you see the overall frame, hand size, jawline, gait etc, it's usually easily to spot a man. I still disagree. Of course what you say applies but it is not a universal truth. Having been active on the fetish scene for many years (not much recently) we met and chatted with many TS in clubs who it would have been difficult without close scrutiny to determine if born male." Whatever. And still knowing that they are men, do you think it's acceptable for them to be in a women's only space? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject. I disagree. This website provides plenty of examples of transwomen who could easily pass as cis women when clothed. In pictures maybe. With the help of filters, underwear, make up and certain poses, most people can significantly change what they look like. How many times has a man or woman commented on here that they met someone IRL and they looked bugger all like their pics. The camera does lie. When met in person and you see the overall frame, hand size, jawline, gait etc, it's usually easily to spot a man. I still disagree. Of course what you say applies but it is not a universal truth. Having been active on the fetish scene for many years (not much recently) we met and chatted with many TS in clubs who it would have been difficult without close scrutiny to determine if born male." Also, I don't think the transwomen in the top pics on Fab are an accurate representation of the average TW who I may encounter in a M&S changing room when taking my daughter for her first bra fitting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject. I disagree. This website provides plenty of examples of transwomen who could easily pass as cis women when clothed. In pictures maybe. With the help of filters, underwear, make up and certain poses, most people can significantly change what they look like. How many times has a man or woman commented on here that they met someone IRL and they looked bugger all like their pics. The camera does lie. When met in person and you see the overall frame, hand size, jawline, gait etc, it's usually easily to spot a man. I still disagree. Of course what you say applies but it is not a universal truth. Having been active on the fetish scene for many years (not much recently) we met and chatted with many TS in clubs who it would have been difficult without close scrutiny to determine if born male. Whatever. And still knowing that they are men, do you think it's acceptable for them to be in a women's only space?" Whatever! You are coming across rather annoyed
Have you actually read my posts? I have given my position already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject. I disagree. This website provides plenty of examples of transwomen who could easily pass as cis women when clothed. In pictures maybe. With the help of filters, underwear, make up and certain poses, most people can significantly change what they look like. How many times has a man or woman commented on here that they met someone IRL and they looked bugger all like their pics. The camera does lie. When met in person and you see the overall frame, hand size, jawline, gait etc, it's usually easily to spot a man. I still disagree. Of course what you say applies but it is not a universal truth. Having been active on the fetish scene for many years (not much recently) we met and chatted with many TS in clubs who it would have been difficult without close scrutiny to determine if born male. Whatever. And still knowing that they are men, do you think it's acceptable for them to be in a women's only space? Whatever! You are coming across rather annoyed
Have you actually read my posts? I have given my position already."Didn't mean it that way, was a bit dismissive perhaps. Yeah, I've read them but your comment on the very convincing looking TS that you've encountered made me ask the question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject. I disagree. This website provides plenty of examples of transwomen who could easily pass as cis women when clothed. In pictures maybe. With the help of filters, underwear, make up and certain poses, most people can significantly change what they look like. How many times has a man or woman commented on here that they met someone IRL and they looked bugger all like their pics. The camera does lie. When met in person and you see the overall frame, hand size, jawline, gait etc, it's usually easily to spot a man. I still disagree. Of course what you say applies but it is not a universal truth. Having been active on the fetish scene for many years (not much recently) we met and chatted with many TS in clubs who it would have been difficult without close scrutiny to determine if born male. Whatever. And still knowing that they are men, do you think it's acceptable for them to be in a women's only space? Whatever! You are coming across rather annoyed
Have you actually read my posts? I have given my position already.
Didn't mean it that way, was a bit dismissive perhaps. Yeah, I've read them but your comment on the very convincing looking TS that you've encountered made me ask the question."Ok fair enough. As I said, what you are saying is not a universal truth but yes of course there are transwomen who are not physically convincing as a woman. For me the crux of the issue is “why should one group’s demand for inclusion disadvantage another group who themselves have no choice over being included”. ie people born women who want to be women have no choice other than to be a woman. Why should they be disadvantaged by someone born male who decides to take action to transition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject. I disagree. This website provides plenty of examples of transwomen who could easily pass as cis women when clothed. In pictures maybe. With the help of filters, underwear, make up and certain poses, most people can significantly change what they look like. How many times has a man or woman commented on here that they met someone IRL and they looked bugger all like their pics. The camera does lie. When met in person and you see the overall frame, hand size, jawline, gait etc, it's usually easily to spot a man. I still disagree. Of course what you say applies but it is not a universal truth. Having been active on the fetish scene for many years (not much recently) we met and chatted with many TS in clubs who it would have been difficult without close scrutiny to determine if born male. Whatever. And still knowing that they are men, do you think it's acceptable for them to be in a women's only space? Whatever! You are coming across rather annoyed
Have you actually read my posts? I have given my position already.
Didn't mean it that way, was a bit dismissive perhaps. Yeah, I've read them but your comment on the very convincing looking TS that you've encountered made me ask the question.
Ok fair enough. As I said, what you are saying is not a universal truth but yes of course there are transwomen who are not physically convincing as a woman.
For me the crux of the issue is “why should one group’s demand for inclusion disadvantage another group who themselves have no choice over being included”.
ie people born women who want to be women have no choice other than to be a woman. Why should they be disadvantaged by someone born male who decides to take action to transition."And on that point, I cannot argue with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject. I disagree. This website provides plenty of examples of transwomen who could easily pass as cis women when clothed. In pictures maybe. With the help of filters, underwear, make up and certain poses, most people can significantly change what they look like. How many times has a man or woman commented on here that they met someone IRL and they looked bugger all like their pics. The camera does lie. When met in person and you see the overall frame, hand size, jawline, gait etc, it's usually easily to spot a man. I still disagree. Of course what you say applies but it is not a universal truth. Having been active on the fetish scene for many years (not much recently) we met and chatted with many TS in clubs who it would have been difficult without close scrutiny to determine if born male. Whatever. And still knowing that they are men, do you think it's acceptable for them to be in a women's only space? Whatever! You are coming across rather annoyed
Have you actually read my posts? I have given my position already.
Didn't mean it that way, was a bit dismissive perhaps. Yeah, I've read them but your comment on the very convincing looking TS that you've encountered made me ask the question.
Ok fair enough. As I said, what you are saying is not a universal truth but yes of course there are transwomen who are not physically convincing as a woman.
For me the crux of the issue is “why should one group’s demand for inclusion disadvantage another group who themselves have no choice over being included”.
ie people born women who want to be women have no choice other than to be a woman. Why should they be disadvantaged by someone born male who decides to take action to transition."I will admit I've missed most of this thread, but outside of sport there needs to be a case made of A) cos women being disadvantaged and B) a trans women "deciding" rather than also having no choice to be trans. There is also a question of how much one group should be disadvantaged because of bad faith actors. Eg true trans women being disadvantaged because a cis man will look to use a law to their advantage. As often the fear about CSI women being disadvantaged is from these actors rather than trans women. There's a discussion to be had there, but imo we need to acknowledge true trans women and bad faith actors. (Not all points aimed at you. This was the last post that felt like it had a degree of "critical thinking"
(From my POV, I don't know enough about the psychology of transgender to understand how much "choice" there is. There are neurons that show very different size differences between male and females, and that these neurons are the size of the "trans" gender rather than the birth sex when you look at trans people (both those who have taken steps to transition and those who just believe they are in the wrong body. Imo, we have lots to learn here, much like how homosexuality was an illness to mid 70s) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""As often the fear about CSI women being disadvantaged is from these actors rather than trans women. There's a discussion to be had there, but imo we need to acknowledge true trans women and bad faith actors." The issue is there is no way to differentiate between the two in real life situations. I don't even think it's fair to expect, as some do, that we only accept transwomen as "genuine" if they've had surgery. It's a bloody horrific surgery with all sorts or potential risks and relatively poor outcomes. " I think the desire is needed to fully transition. In the past I have got into a debate with transwomen here, who like their penis and have zero intention of removing it but will adamantly proclaim they are a woman. Errrrmmm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In most cases we can tell it's a man without seeing their cock & balls. A child could still tell it's a man without being confronted by full nudity. And if they heard their voice there's a good chance it would be obvious. Wish to Christ people would stop pretending this isn’t the case and just be bloody honest on this subject. I disagree. This website provides plenty of examples of transwomen who could easily pass as cis women when clothed. In pictures maybe. With the help of filters, underwear, make up and certain poses, most people can significantly change what they look like. How many times has a man or woman commented on here that they met someone IRL and they looked bugger all like their pics. The camera does lie. When met in person and you see the overall frame, hand size, jawline, gait etc, it's usually easily to spot a man. I still disagree. Of course what you say applies but it is not a universal truth. Having been active on the fetish scene for many years (not much recently) we met and chatted with many TS in clubs who it would have been difficult without close scrutiny to determine if born male. Whatever. And still knowing that they are men, do you think it's acceptable for them to be in a women's only space? Whatever! You are coming across rather annoyed
Have you actually read my posts? I have given my position already.
Didn't mean it that way, was a bit dismissive perhaps. Yeah, I've read them but your comment on the very convincing looking TS that you've encountered made me ask the question.
Ok fair enough. As I said, what you are saying is not a universal truth but yes of course there are transwomen who are not physically convincing as a woman.
For me the crux of the issue is “why should one group’s demand for inclusion disadvantage another group who themselves have no choice over being included”.
ie people born women who want to be women have no choice other than to be a woman. Why should they be disadvantaged by someone born male who decides to take action to transition.I will admit I've missed most of this thread, but outside of sport there needs to be a case made of
A) cos women being disadvantaged and
B) a trans women "deciding" rather than also having no choice to be trans.
There is also a question of how much one group should be disadvantaged because of bad faith actors. Eg true trans women being disadvantaged because a cis man will look to use a law to their advantage.
As often the fear about CSI women being disadvantaged is from these actors rather than trans women. There's a discussion to be had there, but imo we need to acknowledge true trans women and bad faith actors.
(Not all points aimed at you. This was the last post that felt like it had a degree of "critical thinking"
(From my POV, I don't know enough about the psychology of transgender to understand how much "choice" there is. There are neurons that show very different size differences between male and females, and that these neurons are the size of the "trans" gender rather than the birth sex when you look at trans people (both those who have taken steps to transition and those who just believe they are in the wrong body. Imo, we have lots to learn here, much like how homosexuality was an illness to mid 70s)"On the point of “deciding” I would say that could in itself become a tangled mess of “argument”. One could say that a person born male who completely and utterly believes they are in the wrong body and should be female, has no “choice” due to potential effects on their mental health. Ergo they do not have any option but to “decide” to transition. Conversely there remains an element of making the decision to take the very drastic step of undergoing surgery and all that entails. For me, regardless of my first point, I think they are still “deciding” to transition. And as I have said above, while I think taking that decision is very brave and sets them on a challenging journey, it is still their journey and should not detrimentally impact on anyone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the desire is needed to fully transition. In the past I have got into a debate with transwomen here, who like their penis and have zero intention of removing it but will adamantly proclaim they are a woman. " In my opinion if someone still has a penis, then they are a transwoman not a woman. I think only someone who has fully transitioned can be a woman and even then due to XX/XY they still cannot fully be biologically a woman. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the desire is needed to fully transition. In the past I have got into a debate with transwomen here, who like their penis and have zero intention of removing it but will adamantly proclaim they are a woman. In my opinion if someone still has a penis, then they are a transwoman not a woman. I think only someone who has fully transitioned can be a woman and even then due to XX/XY they still cannot fully be biologically a woman. " I would agree with this. Transwoman if partially transitioned, woman if fully transitioned. Those are genders anyway. Obviously biology plays a part in sex but I'm happy to ignore that part (apart from sports) if fully transitioned. For people self identifying I'm happy to adhere to preffered pronouns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? " For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. " This is where i was, but then theore I read, the more the biology becomes interesting. Biology isn't entirely consistent. Male and female are defined by genitals. Gender could be something that encapsulates more of the biological differences, without going as far as being just a social construct. But where this leads to me is why we seperate the world based simply on genitals, particularly things that are more human constructs like toilets and prisons. There are often good reasons but I think it's important that's the bit we discuss and if there are better ways. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. This is where i was, but then theore I read, the more the biology becomes interesting. Biology isn't entirely consistent. Male and female are defined by genitals. Gender could be something that encapsulates more of the biological differences, without going as far as being just a social construct. But where this leads to me is why we seperate the world based simply on genitals, particularly things that are more human constructs like toilets and prisons. There are often good reasons but I think it's important that's the bit we discuss and if there are better ways. " https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363 This gives a rundown on how I understand it. I'm not doctor though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. " A social construct is an idea, concept that has been created by society, and formed through shared beliefs. This shapes our understanding of the world and influences our behaviour and interactions amongst each other. If we have different variants of social construct, our society can't communicate properly. Money is a social construct I get that, but I struggle with gender as it has links with the biological sex of a person which in this case you remove the penis we now say woman, but a woman is a biological female, who will have ovaries, fallopian tubes etc. Taking away male reproductive organs doesn't then constitute a woman in my mind. I have said a lot to simply say, no penis would be Trans woman in my opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. A social construct is an idea, concept that has been created by society, and formed through shared beliefs. This shapes our understanding of the world and influences our behaviour and interactions amongst each other. If we have different variants of social construct, our society can't communicate properly. Money is a social construct I get that, but I struggle with gender as it has links with the biological sex of a person which in this case you remove the penis we now say woman, but a woman is a biological female, who will have ovaries, fallopian tubes etc. Taking away male reproductive organs doesn't then constitute a woman in my mind. I have said a lot to simply say, no penis would be Trans woman in my opinion. " I've posted a link above that matches my understanding. If you have a different view, I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong. This is definitely one of those subjects where there will be varying opinions, of which, even medical professionals can't agree a 'standard' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. This is where i was, but then theore I read, the more the biology becomes interesting. Biology isn't entirely consistent. Male and female are defined by genitals. Gender could be something that encapsulates more of the biological differences, without going as far as being just a social construct. But where this leads to me is why we seperate the world based simply on genitals, particularly things that are more human constructs like toilets and prisons. There are often good reasons but I think it's important that's the bit we discuss and if there are better ways. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363 This gives a rundown on how I understand it. I'm not doctor though. " good article. Maybe what I was describing was close to this "Biologists have started to discuss the idea that sex may be a spectrum. This is not a new concept but one that has taken time to come into the public consciousness." Also not a doctor. But tend to believe science is often in a different place that what we learn at school at 15. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. This is where i was, but then theore I read, the more the biology becomes interesting. Biology isn't entirely consistent. Male and female are defined by genitals. Gender could be something that encapsulates more of the biological differences, without going as far as being just a social construct. But where this leads to me is why we seperate the world based simply on genitals, particularly things that are more human constructs like toilets and prisons. There are often good reasons but I think it's important that's the bit we discuss and if there are better ways. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363 This gives a rundown on how I understand it. I'm not doctor though. good article. Maybe what I was describing was close to this "Biologists have started to discuss the idea that sex may be a spectrum. This is not a new concept but one that has taken time to come into the public consciousness." Also not a doctor. But tend to believe science is often in a different place that what we learn at school at 15. " This is where we 'believe in science', only there isn't a 'standard' as I mentioned above. TBH, it's a bit of a minefield and we're gonna have differing opinions on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. A social construct is an idea, concept that has been created by society, and formed through shared beliefs. This shapes our understanding of the world and influences our behaviour and interactions amongst each other. If we have different variants of social construct, our society can't communicate properly. Money is a social construct I get that, but I struggle with gender as it has links with the biological sex of a person which in this case you remove the penis we now say woman, but a woman is a biological female, who will have ovaries, fallopian tubes etc. Taking away male reproductive organs doesn't then constitute a woman in my mind. I have said a lot to simply say, no penis would be Trans woman in my opinion. I've posted a link above that matches my understanding. If you have a different view, I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong. This is definitely one of those subjects where there will be varying opinions, of which, even medical professionals can't agree a 'standard'" I will have a read
But I think where I'm leaning to, is moving the goalposts of social construct to a point that even experts can't now agree, is leading to a breakdown in communication in society.
I won't and don't mull this over too deeply as it is a cesspit of bad influencers wet dreams.
But one thing has taken sharper focus, there is a lot of support for women's sport and the inclusion of trans women who then go on to take records is not a looked on favourably, I believe this too.
In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. This is where i was, but then theore I read, the more the biology becomes interesting. Biology isn't entirely consistent. Male and female are defined by genitals. Gender could be something that encapsulates more of the biological differences, without going as far as being just a social construct. But where this leads to me is why we seperate the world based simply on genitals, particularly things that are more human constructs like toilets and prisons. There are often good reasons but I think it's important that's the bit we discuss and if there are better ways. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363 This gives a rundown on how I understand it. I'm not doctor though. good article. Maybe what I was describing was close to this "Biologists have started to discuss the idea that sex may be a spectrum. This is not a new concept but one that has taken time to come into the public consciousness." Also not a doctor. But tend to believe science is often in a different place that what we learn at school at 15. This is where we 'believe in science', only there isn't a 'standard' as I mentioned above. TBH, it's a bit of a minefield and we're gonna have differing opinions on it. " imo, if one accepts there isn't a stanard/complete scientific agreement then it enables a good discussion. However many of these thread plead to science when what they mean is what they learnt at school. Now it may be that this science turns out to be right... But much of what I've read adds uncertainty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport?" It's an interesting question, post op there will still be the biological similarities as someone else stated where the person will still have the build, muscles etc of a man so it's unfair on women born as women in head to head competition.. One for the administrators and rule makers and probably the legal sector.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport?" It is a good question. Maybe we need to rebrand sports to male/female. We have never had this problem before but its clearly a problem now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. This is where i was, but then theore I read, the more the biology becomes interesting. Biology isn't entirely consistent. Male and female are defined by genitals. Gender could be something that encapsulates more of the biological differences, without going as far as being just a social construct. But where this leads to me is why we seperate the world based simply on genitals, particularly things that are more human constructs like toilets and prisons. There are often good reasons but I think it's important that's the bit we discuss and if there are better ways. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363 This gives a rundown on how I understand it. I'm not doctor though. good article. Maybe what I was describing was close to this "Biologists have started to discuss the idea that sex may be a spectrum. This is not a new concept but one that has taken time to come into the public consciousness." Also not a doctor. But tend to believe science is often in a different place that what we learn at school at 15. This is where we 'believe in science', only there isn't a 'standard' as I mentioned above. TBH, it's a bit of a minefield and we're gonna have differing opinions on it. imo, if one accepts there isn't a stanard/complete scientific agreement then it enables a good discussion. However many of these thread plead to science when what they mean is what they learnt at school. Now it may be that this science turns out to be right... But much of what I've read adds uncertainty. " It does enable a good discussion, one which the experts (scientists/doctors) need to have. Unfortunately, this particular topic usually comes with a whole load of emotional attachment and its very difficult to have a non-partisan discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport? It is a good question. Maybe we need to rebrand sports to male/female. We have never had this problem before but its clearly a problem now. " That is the answer, remove man and woman from any descriptor, it is either male or female. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. A social construct is an idea, concept that has been created by society, and formed through shared beliefs. This shapes our understanding of the world and influences our behaviour and interactions amongst each other. If we have different variants of social construct, our society can't communicate properly. Money is a social construct I get that, but I struggle with gender as it has links with the biological sex of a person which in this case you remove the penis we now say woman, but a woman is a biological female, who will have ovaries, fallopian tubes etc. Taking away male reproductive organs doesn't then constitute a woman in my mind. I have said a lot to simply say, no penis would be Trans woman in my opinion. I've posted a link above that matches my understanding. If you have a different view, I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong. This is definitely one of those subjects where there will be varying opinions, of which, even medical professionals can't agree a 'standard' I will have a read
But I think where I'm leaning to, is moving the goalposts of social construct to a point that even experts can't now agree, is leading to a breakdown in communication in society.
I won't and don't mull this over too deeply as it is a cesspit of bad influencers wet dreams.
But one thing has taken sharper focus, there is a lot of support for women's sport and the inclusion of trans women who then go on to take records is not a looked on favourably, I believe this too.
In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport?"No. And I explained why above. You cannot reverse the physiological advantage of being male when going through puberty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. A social construct is an idea, concept that has been created by society, and formed through shared beliefs. This shapes our understanding of the world and influences our behaviour and interactions amongst each other. If we have different variants of social construct, our society can't communicate properly. Money is a social construct I get that, but I struggle with gender as it has links with the biological sex of a person which in this case you remove the penis we now say woman, but a woman is a biological female, who will have ovaries, fallopian tubes etc. Taking away male reproductive organs doesn't then constitute a woman in my mind. I have said a lot to simply say, no penis would be Trans woman in my opinion. I've posted a link above that matches my understanding. If you have a different view, I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong. This is definitely one of those subjects where there will be varying opinions, of which, even medical professionals can't agree a 'standard' I will have a read
But I think where I'm leaning to, is moving the goalposts of social construct to a point that even experts can't now agree, is leading to a breakdown in communication in society.
I won't and don't mull this over too deeply as it is a cesspit of bad influencers wet dreams.
But one thing has taken sharper focus, there is a lot of support for women's sport and the inclusion of trans women who then go on to take records is not a looked on favourably, I believe this too.
In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport?
No. And I explained why above. You cannot reverse the physiological advantage of being male when going through puberty."*having gone through puberty | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. A social construct is an idea, concept that has been created by society, and formed through shared beliefs. This shapes our understanding of the world and influences our behaviour and interactions amongst each other. If we have different variants of social construct, our society can't communicate properly. Money is a social construct I get that, but I struggle with gender as it has links with the biological sex of a person which in this case you remove the penis we now say woman, but a woman is a biological female, who will have ovaries, fallopian tubes etc. Taking away male reproductive organs doesn't then constitute a woman in my mind. I have said a lot to simply say, no penis would be Trans woman in my opinion. I've posted a link above that matches my understanding. If you have a different view, I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong. This is definitely one of those subjects where there will be varying opinions, of which, even medical professionals can't agree a 'standard' I will have a read
But I think where I'm leaning to, is moving the goalposts of social construct to a point that even experts can't now agree, is leading to a breakdown in communication in society.
I won't and don't mull this over too deeply as it is a cesspit of bad influencers wet dreams.
But one thing has taken sharper focus, there is a lot of support for women's sport and the inclusion of trans women who then go on to take records is not a looked on favourably, I believe this too.
In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport?
No. And I explained why above. You cannot reverse the physiological advantage of being male when going through puberty."I understand what you have said and this is why I’m asking you how you can you arrive at your conclusion that a man without a penis is now a woman, and then go onto say that woman can’t be included in the women’s categories in sport. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rishi Sunak leveled a charge at Keir Starmer that he couldn't define a woman. Neither, it seems, can Fab Forums. Rishi was right, and Keir represents the standard confused Brit. Rishi was tone-deaf and Keir weaponised the fact (and a grieving family). They're both just politicians fumbling around, trying to do politics." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. A social construct is an idea, concept that has been created by society, and formed through shared beliefs. This shapes our understanding of the world and influences our behaviour and interactions amongst each other. If we have different variants of social construct, our society can't communicate properly. Money is a social construct I get that, but I struggle with gender as it has links with the biological sex of a person which in this case you remove the penis we now say woman, but a woman is a biological female, who will have ovaries, fallopian tubes etc. Taking away male reproductive organs doesn't then constitute a woman in my mind. I have said a lot to simply say, no penis would be Trans woman in my opinion. I've posted a link above that matches my understanding. If you have a different view, I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong. This is definitely one of those subjects where there will be varying opinions, of which, even medical professionals can't agree a 'standard' I will have a read
But I think where I'm leaning to, is moving the goalposts of social construct to a point that even experts can't now agree, is leading to a breakdown in communication in society.
I won't and don't mull this over too deeply as it is a cesspit of bad influencers wet dreams.
But one thing has taken sharper focus, there is a lot of support for women's sport and the inclusion of trans women who then go on to take records is not a looked on favourably, I believe this too.
In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport?
No. And I explained why above. You cannot reverse the physiological advantage of being male when going through puberty.
I understand what you have said and this is why I’m asking you how you can you arrive at your conclusion that a man without a penis is now a woman, and then go onto say that woman can’t be included in the women’s categories in sport.
"See! A minefield and a fair challenge. It also shows the level of complexity. I am passionate about maintaining the exclusivity of female sports categories. I also think (but as I said in my OP, find this all rather confusing) that if someone born male has fully transitioned (so now has breasts, no penis, and a vagina) then they should be classed as a woman…except!!!! Due to the point on post puberty physiological advantage, they cannot be classed as a woman for the purposes of sport! aaaaarrrgghhhhh confusing! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. A social construct is an idea, concept that has been created by society, and formed through shared beliefs. This shapes our understanding of the world and influences our behaviour and interactions amongst each other. If we have different variants of social construct, our society can't communicate properly. Money is a social construct I get that, but I struggle with gender as it has links with the biological sex of a person which in this case you remove the penis we now say woman, but a woman is a biological female, who will have ovaries, fallopian tubes etc. Taking away male reproductive organs doesn't then constitute a woman in my mind. I have said a lot to simply say, no penis would be Trans woman in my opinion. I've posted a link above that matches my understanding. If you have a different view, I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong. This is definitely one of those subjects where there will be varying opinions, of which, even medical professionals can't agree a 'standard' I will have a read
But I think where I'm leaning to, is moving the goalposts of social construct to a point that even experts can't now agree, is leading to a breakdown in communication in society.
I won't and don't mull this over too deeply as it is a cesspit of bad influencers wet dreams.
But one thing has taken sharper focus, there is a lot of support for women's sport and the inclusion of trans women who then go on to take records is not a looked on favourably, I believe this too.
In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport?
No. And I explained why above. You cannot reverse the physiological advantage of being male when going through puberty.
I understand what you have said and this is why I’m asking you how you can you arrive at your conclusion that a man without a penis is now a woman, and then go onto say that woman can’t be included in the women’s categories in sport.
See! A minefield and a fair challenge. It also shows the level of complexity.
I am passionate about maintaining the exclusivity of female sports categories.
I also think (but as I said in my OP, find this all rather confusing) that if someone born male has fully transitioned (so now has breasts, no penis, and a vagina) then they should be classed as a woman…except!!!!
Due to the point on post puberty physiological advantage, they cannot be classed as a woman for the purposes of sport!
aaaaarrrgghhhhh confusing! "I *think* it comes back to another point I made that someone’s request/demand for inclusion should not disadvantage those already included who have no choice on that inclusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. This is where i was, but then theore I read, the more the biology becomes interesting. Biology isn't entirely consistent. Male and female are defined by genitals. Gender could be something that encapsulates more of the biological differences, without going as far as being just a social construct. But where this leads to me is why we seperate the world based simply on genitals, particularly things that are more human constructs like toilets and prisons. There are often good reasons but I think it's important that's the bit we discuss and if there are better ways. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363 This gives a rundown on how I understand it. I'm not doctor though. good article. Maybe what I was describing was close to this "Biologists have started to discuss the idea that sex may be a spectrum. This is not a new concept but one that has taken time to come into the public consciousness." Also not a doctor. But tend to believe science is often in a different place that what we learn at school at 15. " . "Spectrum." total nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. A social construct is an idea, concept that has been created by society, and formed through shared beliefs. This shapes our understanding of the world and influences our behaviour and interactions amongst each other. If we have different variants of social construct, our society can't communicate properly. Money is a social construct I get that, but I struggle with gender as it has links with the biological sex of a person which in this case you remove the penis we now say woman, but a woman is a biological female, who will have ovaries, fallopian tubes etc. Taking away male reproductive organs doesn't then constitute a woman in my mind. I have said a lot to simply say, no penis would be Trans woman in my opinion. I've posted a link above that matches my understanding. If you have a different view, I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong. This is definitely one of those subjects where there will be varying opinions, of which, even medical professionals can't agree a 'standard' I will have a read
But I think where I'm leaning to, is moving the goalposts of social construct to a point that even experts can't now agree, is leading to a breakdown in communication in society.
I won't and don't mull this over too deeply as it is a cesspit of bad influencers wet dreams.
But one thing has taken sharper focus, there is a lot of support for women's sport and the inclusion of trans women who then go on to take records is not a looked on favourably, I believe this too.
In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport?
No. And I explained why above. You cannot reverse the physiological advantage of being male when going through puberty.
I understand what you have said and this is why I’m asking you how you can you arrive at your conclusion that a man without a penis is now a woman, and then go onto say that woman can’t be included in the women’s categories in sport.
See! A minefield and a fair challenge. It also shows the level of complexity.
I am passionate about maintaining the exclusivity of female sports categories.
I also think (but as I said in my OP, find this all rather confusing) that if someone born male has fully transitioned (so now has breasts, no penis, and a vagina) then they should be classed as a woman…except!!!!
Due to the point on post puberty physiological advantage, they cannot be classed as a woman for the purposes of sport!
aaaaarrrgghhhhh confusing! "female categories for females and vise versa. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. A social construct is an idea, concept that has been created by society, and formed through shared beliefs. This shapes our understanding of the world and influences our behaviour and interactions amongst each other. If we have different variants of social construct, our society can't communicate properly. Money is a social construct I get that, but I struggle with gender as it has links with the biological sex of a person which in this case you remove the penis we now say woman, but a woman is a biological female, who will have ovaries, fallopian tubes etc. Taking away male reproductive organs doesn't then constitute a woman in my mind. I have said a lot to simply say, no penis would be Trans woman in my opinion. I've posted a link above that matches my understanding. If you have a different view, I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong. This is definitely one of those subjects where there will be varying opinions, of which, even medical professionals can't agree a 'standard' I will have a read
But I think where I'm leaning to, is moving the goalposts of social construct to a point that even experts can't now agree, is leading to a breakdown in communication in society.
I won't and don't mull this over too deeply as it is a cesspit of bad influencers wet dreams.
But one thing has taken sharper focus, there is a lot of support for women's sport and the inclusion of trans women who then go on to take records is not a looked on favourably, I believe this too.
In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport?
No. And I explained why above. You cannot reverse the physiological advantage of being male when going through puberty.
I understand what you have said and this is why I’m asking you how you can you arrive at your conclusion that a man without a penis is now a woman, and then go onto say that woman can’t be included in the women’s categories in sport.
See! A minefield and a fair challenge. It also shows the level of complexity.
I am passionate about maintaining the exclusivity of female sports categories.
I also think (but as I said in my OP, find this all rather confusing) that if someone born male has fully transitioned (so now has breasts, no penis, and a vagina) then they should be classed as a woman…except!!!!
Due to the point on post puberty physiological advantage, they cannot be classed as a woman for the purposes of sport!
aaaaarrrgghhhhh confusing!
I *think* it comes back to another point I made that someone’s request/demand for inclusion should not disadvantage those already included who have no choice on that inclusion."Social construct is not my way or no way, it is a social understanding based on the whole. Allowing social construct to be taken on a journey for self interest is where we are now and why we have so many problems communicating, nobody knows the rules and fear of not knowing wins out every time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The way I see it, even if a man fully transitions full op and being a trans athlete gives them an unfair advantage, males produce testosterone naturally from exercise and or training females do not, unless a transitioned athlete sit around not training or excersing it may be a fair competition." You’re correct but it is far more than just testosterone. “T” can be suppressed but physiological advantage cannot be reversed. Read my first post in this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. A social construct is an idea, concept that has been created by society, and formed through shared beliefs. This shapes our understanding of the world and influences our behaviour and interactions amongst each other. If we have different variants of social construct, our society can't communicate properly. Money is a social construct I get that, but I struggle with gender as it has links with the biological sex of a person which in this case you remove the penis we now say woman, but a woman is a biological female, who will have ovaries, fallopian tubes etc. Taking away male reproductive organs doesn't then constitute a woman in my mind. I have said a lot to simply say, no penis would be Trans woman in my opinion. I've posted a link above that matches my understanding. If you have a different view, I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong. This is definitely one of those subjects where there will be varying opinions, of which, even medical professionals can't agree a 'standard' I will have a read
But I think where I'm leaning to, is moving the goalposts of social construct to a point that even experts can't now agree, is leading to a breakdown in communication in society.
I won't and don't mull this over too deeply as it is a cesspit of bad influencers wet dreams.
But one thing has taken sharper focus, there is a lot of support for women's sport and the inclusion of trans women who then go on to take records is not a looked on favourably, I believe this too.
In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport?
No. And I explained why above. You cannot reverse the physiological advantage of being male when going through puberty.
I understand what you have said and this is why I’m asking you how you can you arrive at your conclusion that a man without a penis is now a woman, and then go onto say that woman can’t be included in the women’s categories in sport.
See! A minefield and a fair challenge. It also shows the level of complexity.
I am passionate about maintaining the exclusivity of female sports categories.
I also think (but as I said in my OP, find this all rather confusing) that if someone born male has fully transitioned (so now has breasts, no penis, and a vagina) then they should be classed as a woman…except!!!!
Due to the point on post puberty physiological advantage, they cannot be classed as a woman for the purposes of sport!
aaaaarrrgghhhhh confusing!
I *think* it comes back to another point I made that someone’s request/demand for inclusion should not disadvantage those already included who have no choice on that inclusion.
Social construct is not my way or no way, it is a social understanding based on the whole. Allowing social construct to be taken on a journey for self interest is where we are now and why we have so many problems communicating, nobody knows the rules and fear of not knowing wins out every time.
"Not sure I fully get your point? I am clear on my position on sport. Less so in other areas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why is it without a penis = woman? For me woman, man, transwoman/man = gender (social construct). Male, female = sex (biology). I'm happy to go along with the social construct side. This is the only way for me to explain it, even if it doesn't fully make sense. A social construct is an idea, concept that has been created by society, and formed through shared beliefs. This shapes our understanding of the world and influences our behaviour and interactions amongst each other. If we have different variants of social construct, our society can't communicate properly. Money is a social construct I get that, but I struggle with gender as it has links with the biological sex of a person which in this case you remove the penis we now say woman, but a woman is a biological female, who will have ovaries, fallopian tubes etc. Taking away male reproductive organs doesn't then constitute a woman in my mind. I have said a lot to simply say, no penis would be Trans woman in my opinion. I've posted a link above that matches my understanding. If you have a different view, I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong. This is definitely one of those subjects where there will be varying opinions, of which, even medical professionals can't agree a 'standard' I will have a read
But I think where I'm leaning to, is moving the goalposts of social construct to a point that even experts can't now agree, is leading to a breakdown in communication in society.
I won't and don't mull this over too deeply as it is a cesspit of bad influencers wet dreams.
But one thing has taken sharper focus, there is a lot of support for women's sport and the inclusion of trans women who then go on to take records is not a looked on favourably, I believe this too.
In the description above removing the penis = woman, is it then okay for that person to enter womens sport?
No. And I explained why above. You cannot reverse the physiological advantage of being male when going through puberty.
I understand what you have said and this is why I’m asking you how you can you arrive at your conclusion that a man without a penis is now a woman, and then go onto say that woman can’t be included in the women’s categories in sport.
See! A minefield and a fair challenge. It also shows the level of complexity.
I am passionate about maintaining the exclusivity of female sports categories.
I also think (but as I said in my OP, find this all rather confusing) that if someone born male has fully transitioned (so now has breasts, no penis, and a vagina) then they should be classed as a woman…except!!!!
Due to the point on post puberty physiological advantage, they cannot be classed as a woman for the purposes of sport!
aaaaarrrgghhhhh confusing!
I *think* it comes back to another point I made that someone’s request/demand for inclusion should not disadvantage those already included who have no choice on that inclusion.
Social construct is not my way or no way, it is a social understanding based on the whole. Allowing social construct to be taken on a journey for self interest is where we are now and why we have so many problems communicating, nobody knows the rules and fear of not knowing wins out every time.
Not sure I fully get your point? I am clear on my
position on sport. Less so in other areas."Money is a social construct ,we recognise it for what it is and understand it globally, I can workout my money based on any other currency because it supported by social constructs that are accepted. However, financial markets and hedge funds can manipulate the understanding of that social construct by changing the rules, making it difficult for the average person to understand. From that position we know we have witnessed banks collapsing and bail outs that impacted the world economy. By the manipulation of the social construct called gender I can see how you and globally we have now fallen into a position of saying trans women should not be allowed to enter women’s sport, but in the same breath say a trans woman who has their penis removed is now a woman, it doesn’t make sense because it has been manipulated. The idea of male and female, actually removed this as it takes away social construct manipulation. It is a lot to take in… might be worth reading that more than once  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rishi Sunak leveled a charge at Keir Starmer that he couldn't define a woman. Neither, it seems, can Fab Forums. Rishi was right, and Keir represents the standard confused Brit. Rishi was tone-deaf and Keir weaponised the fact (and a grieving family). They're both just politicians fumbling around, trying to do politics." I werf yeow....! And aside from the good people above and Amelia... You are all self righteous opinionated bigots. Stop already... Mod... Please close this down due to too many .... Ahem... Contributors? And I'm getting hate PM's as well. People, deal with your Transphobic hate! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rishi Sunak leveled a charge at Keir Starmer that he couldn't define a woman. Neither, it seems, can Fab Forums. Rishi was right, and Keir represents the standard confused Brit. Rishi was tone-deaf and Keir weaponised the fact (and a grieving family). They're both just politicians fumbling around, trying to do politics. I werf yeow....! And aside from the good people above and Amelia... You are all self righteous opinionated bigots. Stop already... Mod... Please close this down due to too many .... Ahem... Contributors? And I'm getting hate PM's as well. People, deal with your Transphobic hate!" I don't hate for anything or anyone, live and let live, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
