Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[littletedwest]

We dressed my little cousin as as a girl when he was 5. Put him in my sisters dress and put lipstick on him. Sent him to call for a neighbours kid, lads dad never sussed. We also disguised him as a guy and begged for money.

He's a copper now I may mention this story to him occasionally 

[Bjornebye]

10 minutes ago, littletedwest said:

We dressed my little cousin as as a girl when he was 5. Put him in my sisters dress and put lipstick on him. Sent him to call for a neighbours kid, lads dad never sussed. We also disguised him as a guy and begged for money.

He's a copper now I may mention this story to him occasionally 

No wonder they kneel on peoples necks. 

[VladimirIlyich]

15 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It's a tough decision that carries risks both ways.  If you think your kid might be trans, do you force them to grow into the sex assigned at birth or do you take action to put them on a path towards reassignment.  Either way, if you make the wrong call you're setting your kid up for devastating physical and mental health problems. 

You wait until they are mature and see if the behaviour has continued or was just the usual childish tantrums and contrarian behaviour that comes with being an immature person.

[Remmie]

I don't think Dysphoria and childish/contrarian behaviour are linked to be honest. 

 

It is very difficult to say what the age limit should be on reassignment, some people know their identity with 100% certainty from very early on whereas others may regret taking that path. Ultimately people much more educated on the subject than me need to weigh up what will benefit the majority. I can't say I've seen any examples of regrets about a reassignment at any age, except earlier on in this thread - my suspicion is that these examples are few and far between.

[Bjornebye]

21 hours ago, Captain Turdseye said:

I’ve let myself down there. 

I liked it 

[Rico1304]

JK Rowling seems to have upset lots of people by tweeting about the biological reality of sex. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Erm, thanks for the heads up. I guess. 

[Moo]

On 27/05/2020 at 08:56, redheart said:

CIS is a term taken from chemistry I think and applied here to denote cissexual when the gender and sex match.

 

So a woman born a woman and identifying as a woman has to call herself a CIS woman so as not to exclude entitled men who demand to be included. So a woman is no longer a woman but is merely one version of a woman because the concept of "woman" has no meaning or reality other than an ephemeral feeling.

 

In other news MEN are not being forced to identify as CIS man so as not to exclude F2M trans because F2M trans were socialised as woman and hence not conditioned to be entitled and to resort to threats and aggression

Are you being forced?  Out of interest who is forcing you? 

[VladimirIlyich]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

JK Rowling seems to have upset lots of people by tweeting about the biological reality of sex. 

Her Chamber of Secrets?

[Section_31]

The JK Rowling stuff is illuminating in a number of ways.

 

The first is that it's gaslighting pure and simple. She expresses an opinion and is immediately flamed (isn't that what they call a Twitter pile on?). The gist seemingly being "she has a platform which she could talk about so much stuff yet chooses to talk about this!", the notion being that she's not allowed to, and if she does she'll be hammered for it. Ironically that's the kind of stuff a lot of these folks bemoan Trump and Johnson's acolytes for.

 

The second is that it's a clash of ideologies between people who feel downtrodden. Rowling was a single mum who grew up in Thatcher's Britain and so probably has strong views about it. She probably feels aggrieved that under the present rules of engagement, she could be vaving a gathering of the Edinburgh women's rights association and Bill Clinton could walk in still smelling of intern juices, play some Kenny G, then announce how good it is to be in the presence of so many fellow longsuffering sisters.

 

Third, there's like a clash of fame cultures going on too I reckon. A lot of the blue tick brigade are jealous because her fame comes from a time when people were famous for being good at things, not for vlogging about how depressed they're feeling today and it was only the love of the subscribers that get them through the day. I mean fucking hell, imagine being the world's richest author and being told your books are shite by someone that works at Cafe Nero.

 

Some of these people are every bit as destructive to public discourse as the people they claim to hate. Stifling debate is one of the drivers of populism, they feed off each other like some kind of modern, twisted version  of the military industrial complex. You could see it starting years ago when you'd get identikit politicians like Clegg and Blair and David Miliband and someone would ask about immigration and they'd stiffen up and be like "yeah it's great immigration, immigration for all." Then the only other opinion that didn't jive would be an extremist one like the BNP or Farage, which was BNP in a fur coat. There was never anywhere for the middle of the road opinions to go, it was always either "all immigration is great, there should be no room for any fear/concerns/debate and if you dont agree you're racist." Or "all immigration is bad, they should go back to Bongo bongo land."

 

It's the same with this now. People often feel they either have to stay out of it completely for fear of being branded all manner of bigot, or find a home with the only person saying they agree with you, but who are sadly usually people with extremist views on other subjects.

[Rico1304]

Out of rep. 

[Mudface]

10 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

The JK Rowling stuff is illuminating in a number of ways.

 

The first is that it's gaslighting pure and simple. She expresses an opinion and is immediately flamed (isn't that what they call a Twitter pile on?). The gist seemingly being "she has a platform which she could talk about so much stuff yet chooses to talk about this!", the notion being that she's not allowed to, and if she does she'll be hammered for it. Ironically that's the kind of stuff a lot of these folks bemoan Trump and Johnson's acolytes for.

 

The second is that it's a clash of ideologies between people who feel downtrodden. Rowling was a single mum who grew up in Thatcher's Britain and so probably has strong views about it. She probably feels aggrieved that under the present rules of engagement, she could be vaving a gathering of the Edinburgh women's rights association and Bill Clinton could walk in still smelling of intern juices, play some Kenny G, then announce how good it is to be in the presence of so many fellow longsuffering sisters.

 

Third, there's like a clash of fame cultures going on too I reckon. A lot of the blue tick brigade are jealous because her fame comes from a time when people were famous for being good at things, not for vlogging about how depressed they're feeling today and it was only the love of the subscribers that get them through the day. I mean fucking hell, imagine being the world's richest author and being told your books are shite by someone that works at Cafe Nero.

 

Some of these people are every bit as destructive to public discourse as the people they claim to hate. Stifling debate is one of the drivers of populism, they feed off each other like some kind of modern, twisted version  of the military industrial complex. You could see it starting years ago when you'd get identikit politicians like Clegg and Blair and David Miliband and someone would ask about immigration and they'd stiffen up and be like "yeah it's great immigration, immigration for all." Then the only other opinion that didn't jive would be an extremist one like the BNP or Farage, which was BNP in a fur coat. There was never anywhere for the middle of the road opinions to go, it was always either "all immigration is great, there should be no room for any fear/concerns/debate and if you dont agree you're racist." Or "all immigration is bad, they should go back to Bongo bongo land."

 

It's the same with this now. People often feel they either have to stay out of it completely for fear of being branded all manner of bigot, or find a home with the only person saying they agree with you, but who are sadly usually people with extremist views on other subjects.

 

The most ridiculous thing about all this, is that you have feminists fighting with trans-people. The 'right' must be laughing their asses off.

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, Mudface said:

 

The most ridiculous thing about all this, is that you have feminists fighting with trans-people. The 'right' must be laughing their asses off.

Being an ally isn’t enough, you have to agree with 100% of the ideology or you are a bigot.  It’s crazy.  

[Section_31]

3 minutes ago, Mudface said:

 

The most ridiculous thing about all this, is that you have feminists fighting with trans-people. The 'right' must be laughing their asses off.

I can't keep up with it to be honest. Owen Jones had labelled a gay and lesbian group 'anti trans extremists' because they didn't cover trsngenders too or something.

 

Remember the 80s when you had a gay character in Eastenders? He was smartly dressed and drank red wine. A less confusing time all around.

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I can't keep up with it to be honest. Owen Jones had labelled a gay and lesbian group 'anti trans extremists' because they didn't cover trsngenders too or something.

 

Remember the 80s when you had a gay character in Eastenders? He was smartly dressed and drank red wine. A less confusing time all around.

Their view is that LGB issues are based around sex, being trans isn’t.  Plus they felt lesbian issues were being marginalised so created new group.  Trans rights advocates have taken that to mean they hate trans people.  

[Nunavut Patrick]

In the five minutes of attention I gave this latest hullabaloo I discovered that trans men can menstruate. 
 

Also, I know a man who lives with a woman and he claims he gets empathy periods that are synchronized with her actual menstruation. 
 

Now that made me angry as it took years to convince females that man flu was real and now he comes along with this empathy period and the females will use link that to debunk man flu which is very, very real.

[Strontium]

3 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Being an ally isn’t enough, you have to agree with 100% of the ideology or you are a bigot.  It’s crazy.  

 

You're a bigot if you don't think children should be given puberty blockers, apparently.

 

To me it doesn't make sense, because being against children transitioning does not mean you hate trans people.

 

It's like saying I hate boobs because I don't think kids should be able to get breast implants. Well no, actually you won't find someone who likes big tits more than I do, I just don't think children should be making life-altering decisions like that.

[lifetime fan]

10 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

You're a bigot if you don't think children should be given puberty blockers, apparently.

 

To me it doesn't make sense, because being against children transitioning does not mean you hate trans people.

 

It's like saying I hate boobs because I don't think kids should be able to get breast implants. Well no, actually you won't find someone who likes big tits more than I do, I just don't think children should be making life-altering decisions like that.

Negged. 
 

I’ve found you lying on here. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

41 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

You're a bigot if you don't think children should be given puberty blockers, apparently.

 

To me it doesn't make sense, because being against children transitioning does not mean you hate trans people.

 

It's like saying I hate boobs because I don't think kids should be able to get breast implants. Well no, actually you won't find someone who likes big tits more than I do, I just don't think children should be making life-altering decisions like that.

Oh, aye? Says who? I mean, it’s an easy way to lead into a rant, but seems like a bit weak to me. 

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

You're a bigot if you don't think children should be given puberty blockers, apparently.

 

To me it doesn't make sense, because being against children transitioning does not mean you hate trans people.

 

It's like saying I hate boobs because I don't think kids should be able to get breast implants. Well no, actually you won't find someone who likes big tits more than I do, I just don't think children should be making life-altering decisions like that.

This week the NHS has quietly changed its advice on puberty blockers and their impacts.  Previously they’d claimed that they were free from side effects, but now they have told the truth.  

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, lifetime fan said:

Negged. 
 

I’ve found you lying on here. 

 

It's a fair cop.

 

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Oh, aye? Says who? I mean, it’s an easy way to lead into a rant, but seems like a bit weak to me. 

 

That Mermaids group are always at it.

[Numero Veinticinco]

44 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

That Mermaids group are always at it.

I’m fairly sure they have no authority over anything. I’ll continue to think that messing with developing bodies is a bad idea. Whether that’s with lots of weed or with hormones. Fortunately, ‘bigotry’ already has a definition. And that ain’t it.

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

It's a fair cop.

 

 

That Mermaids group are always at it.

History will not be kind to them.  I mean, there’s enough evidence now to condemn them but I’d say in 3-4 years when they start to be sued there’ll be a lot of back peddling.  

[Captain Howdy]

10 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

JK Rowling seems to have upset lots of people by tweeting about the biological reality of sex. 

Don’t have an opinion on this subject either way if I’m honest, it’s certainly something that neither bothers nor interests me in the slightest. With that being said anything that enrages that ridiculous twat Owen Jones is fine by me.

[Captain Howdy]

7 hours ago, Section_31 said:

The JK Rowling stuff is illuminating in a number of ways.

 

The first is that it's gaslighting pure and simple. She expresses an opinion and is immediately flamed (isn't that what they call a Twitter pile on?). The gist seemingly being "she has a platform which she could talk about so much stuff yet chooses to talk about this!", the notion being that she's not allowed to, and if she does she'll be hammered for it. Ironically that's the kind of stuff a lot of these folks bemoan Trump and Johnson's acolytes for.

 

The second is that it's a clash of ideologies between people who feel downtrodden. Rowling was a single mum who grew up in Thatcher's Britain and so probably has strong views about it. She probably feels aggrieved that under the present rules of engagement, she could be vaving a gathering of the Edinburgh women's rights association and Bill Clinton could walk in still smelling of intern juices, play some Kenny G, then announce how good it is to be in the presence of so many fellow longsuffering sisters.

 

Third, there's like a clash of fame cultures going on too I reckon. A lot of the blue tick brigade are jealous because her fame comes from a time when people were famous for being good at things, not for vlogging about how depressed they're feeling today and it was only the love of the subscribers that get them through the day. I mean fucking hell, imagine being the world's richest author and being told your books are shite by someone that works at Cafe Nero.

 

Some of these people are every bit as destructive to public discourse as the people they claim to hate. Stifling debate is one of the drivers of populism, they feed off each other like some kind of modern, twisted version  of the military industrial complex. You could see it starting years ago when you'd get identikit politicians like Clegg and Blair and David Miliband and someone would ask about immigration and they'd stiffen up and be like "yeah it's great immigration, immigration for all." Then the only other opinion that didn't jive would be an extremist one like the BNP or Farage, which was BNP in a fur coat. There was never anywhere for the middle of the road opinions to go, it was always either "all immigration is great, there should be no room for any fear/concerns/debate and if you dont agree you're racist." Or "all immigration is bad, they should go back to Bongo bongo land."

 

It's the same with this now. People often feel they either have to stay out of it completely for fear of being branded all manner of bigot, or find a home with the only person saying they agree with you, but who are sadly usually people with extremist views on other subjects.

Careful now, you sound like one of those Centrist types