Jump to content
Gym Beglin

Transgender stuff - what's going on?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

And, while I don't agree with Starmer's stance on this issue, you'll be surprised to learn that outside of right-wing circles, many decent people believe there's things that shouldn't be said in public, even if you believe them to be self-evident facts.  

I'm sorry, its probably me, but I don't understand this. What self evident facts shouldn't be said in public? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Since when was Starmer a major left-wing politician? He's as much of an empty vessel ideologically these days as your man Johnson.

 

And, while I don't agree with Starmer's stance on this issue, you'll be surprised to learn that outside of right-wing circles, many decent people believe there's things that shouldn't be said in public, even if you believe them to be self-evident facts.  

I think (I hope) you’re conflating facts and opinions. Some abhorrent opinions shouldn’t be aired in public but facts are just facts and should never be oppressed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/09/2021 at 20:51, Rico1304 said:

The Lancet, a medical publication, unable to say ‘women’. 
 

 

It's almost as if The Lancet understands stuff better than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

I think (I hope) you’re conflating facts and opinions. Some abhorrent opinions shouldn’t be aired in public but facts are just facts and should never be oppressed. 

No, facts. Sometimes facts with little or no context, but facts that someone, maybe with an agenda, can point to and say 'this is fact'. 

 

You don't strike me as stupid, nor A Red, so I'm sure you can remember some relatively recent examples - ones that I won't say in public precisely because they are highly contentious and offensive.

 

To refer to the specific incident you mentioned, some (including the law as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) would say it's not a fact that only women have a cervix - trans men do. Now, you can argue that they are women, but is that a fact? 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

What's wrong with making sure transmen have all the necessary tests if they still have a cervix?

You mean we should treat people as people?

 

Madness!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

Seems like an enormous global psychological experiment. If they can train us all to see trans women as women and to adjust our speech and thought process, what is the next thing they will try? 

Make us wear masks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It's almost as if The Lancet understands stuff better than you do.

Undoubtedly.  But they’ve got this horribly wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You mean we should treat people as people?

 

Madness!

Who’s suggesting otherwise.  It’s you who are suggesting treating people as something they are not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full quote from the text:

Quote

Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of endometriosis and the way women's pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria.

What are they getting wrong here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

No, facts. Sometimes facts with little or no context, but facts that someone, maybe with an agenda, can point to and say 'this is fact'. 

 

You don't strike me as stupid, nor A Red, so I'm sure you can remember some relatively recent examples - ones that I won't say in public precisely because they are highly contentious and offensive.

 

To refer to the specific incident you mentioned, some (including the law as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) would say it's not a fact that only women have a cervix - trans men do. Now, you can argue that they are women, but is that a fact? 

 

 

 

 

They are women.  
 

Further back in this thread there’s someone sniping about women not knowing the medical terms for their reproductive organs.  Turns out a huge proportion don’t.  By not using the word ‘woman’ you are excluding these people from the message.  Some women are worried about being erased for a small population.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Bless.

Try and patronise all you want, you know it won’t work on me. 
 

Men can’t become women, women can’t become men.  That’s not controversial, well, it shouldn’t be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

No, facts. Sometimes facts with little or no context, but facts that someone, maybe with an agenda, can point to and say 'this is fact'. 

 

You don't strike me as stupid, nor A Red, so I'm sure you can remember some relatively recent examples - ones that I won't say in public precisely because they are highly contentious and offensive.

 

To refer to the specific incident you mentioned, some (including the law as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) would say it's not a fact that only women have a cervix - trans men do. Now, you can argue that they are women, but is that a fact? 

 

 

 

 

This is all good philosophical stuff to occupy me on a long train journey. I think facts are independent of the law, you can’t legislate to make 2 plus 2 equal 5.

 

This takes us to is gender a fact or an opinion ? In my view, it’s fixed and whilst you can self identify as what ever you want, you can’t elevate your opinion to be a fact. In the same way, mass and race are fixed and whilst I could claim to self identify as a svelte black women, the fact is I’m a fat white bloke. As I have posted ad naussum, what’s the difference between gender and race ? 

 

That said, it shouldn’t matter. People can identify as who ever they want to be and none of the rest of us should care. There’s much bigger issues facing humanity than whether someone in a frock is a man or a women. Where it becomes an issue is when a small group of activists try to force the rest of us into agreement and threatening violence against women who disagree. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Try and patronise all you want, you know it won’t work on me. 
 

Men can’t become women, women can’t become men.  That’s not controversial, well, it shouldn’t be.  

This is why I no longer bother arguing with you. When your blinkers are so powerful that you look at scientific publications and say "Dear God, the woke brigade have got to the scientists now!" then you've clearly gone far beyond reason.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

This is why I no longer bother arguing with you. When your blinkers are so powerful that you look at scientific publications and say "Dear God, the woke brigade have got to the scientists now!" then you've clearly gone far beyond reason.

Ha ha ha. Capturing the language doesn’t change the science, but you know that.  The backlash they are facing bears that out.  
 

Between 2012 and 2018 436 women were prosecuted for rape.  Things that will never happen #24574346

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Still not sure what the scientific publication is supposed to have done here, tbh.

They didn’t use the word that covers the group of people they referred to. The one that’s been used for thousands of years and everyone understands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

They didn’t use the word that covers the group of people they referred to. The one that’s been used for thousands of years and everyone understands. 

Bollocks. As I've posted they use that word in the full quote, and several times in the text.

 

Getting in a flap about absolutely fuck all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Between 2012 and 2018 436 women were prosecuted for rape.  Things that will never happen #24574346

Source? Context (e.g. what country? What proportion of total rape cases? Whether the rapists were trans women? Whether that number includes women as accomplices to rape? etc.)? Source for the claim that anyone said that no trans woman would ever commit rape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

They didn’t use the word that covers the group of people they referred to. The one that’s been used for thousands of years and everyone understands. 

 

And that is the issue, not the fabricated one, we are not talking about cervical smears for men who have transitioned who have had reconstructive surgery and a cavity has to be inspected because the woke police say so.

 

It's about women who have transitioned to men, or are planning to do, keeping up with cervical smear testing, that's the issue, not this complete fabrictaion online. Some of whom will be missing out as they are misgendered. 

 

So the phrase 'only women have a cervix' is both true, biologically, and false, from a construct angle and this is the argument not the nonsense dickheads are throwing about.

 

Again, the arguments on the fringes are not the real arguments and need to be ignored on both sides as they pollute discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bruce Spanner said:

 

And that is the issue, not the fabricated one, we are not talking about cervical smears for men who have transitioned who have had reconstructive surgery and a cavity has to be inspected because the woke police say so.

 

It's about women who have transitioned to men, or are planning to do, keeping up with cervical smear testing, that's the issue, not this complete fabrictaion online. And some will be missing out as they are misgendered. 

 

So the phrase 'only women have a cervix' is both true, biologically, and false, from a construct angle and this is the argument not the nonsense dickheads are throwing about.

 

Again, the arguments on the fringes are not the real arguments and need to be ignored on both sides as they pollute discourse.

India Willoughby has offered to show her cervix live in tv.  C5 show right there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Source? Context (e.g. what country? What proportion of total rape cases? Whether the rapists were trans women? Whether that number includes women as accomplices to rape? etc.)? Source for the claim that anyone said that no trans woman would ever commit rape?

Here you go, all here.  
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×