Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Quite convenient how the proportions have matched up so neatly...

 

It's an example simply to illustrate a point. I'm not pretending the percentages are precise.

 

If you want more exact figures... there are said to be 72,800 prostitutes in the UK (government figures) of which 88% are women and 4% trans. Now, I don't know exactly how many of those 4% are transwomen, but it's generally thought to be most of them. Let's say for argument's sake it's three quarters of them (ie 3% of the total). So there would be approximately 30 times more women in prostitution than transwomen.

 

Now, how many women and transwomen are there in the UK. Plug those figures in and away you go.

[Pidge]

Lies, damned lies and liberal democrats 

[SasaS]

22 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

It's an example simply to illustrate a point. I'm not pretending the percentages are precise.

 

If you want more exact figures... there are said to be 72,800 prostitutes in the UK (government figures) of which 88% are women and 4% trans. Now, I don't know exactly how many of those 4% are transwomen, but it's generally thought to be most of them. Let's say for argument's sake it's three quarters of them (ie 3% of the total). So there would be approximately 30 times more women in prostitution than transwomen.

 

Now, how many women and transwomen are there in the UK. Plug those figures in and away you go.

That is about one prostitute for 350 adult males. A significant drop from Victorian times.

[Rico1304]

Seems sensible.  
 

 

[Moo]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Seems sensible.  
 

 

Yeah especially the bit where she says the debate has become too toxic, everyone should think about that before commenting really as negative and provocative discourse only worsens the situation.

[Rico1304]

8 minutes ago, Moo said:

Yeah especially the bit where she says the debate has become too toxic, everyone should think about that before commenting really as negative and provocative discourse only worsens the situation.

Especially as her views, as expressed in that clip are deemed transphobic. 

[A Red]

4 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Seems sensible.  
 

 

Ok, so the Labour position is, you might have been born a bloke but you have the right to be called a woman but when it really comes down to it you are still a bloke. Seems fair enough to me.

[stringvest]

You only qualify as a women once you’ve got the minge.  And only then as long as you don’t do competitive sport.   Even without your swinger, you’ll still be classed a ringer.  Just remember that and you’ll be ok lads.

[Rico1304]

18 hours ago, No2 said:

Two trans people elected in Germany for the Greens. Maybe its not wise to take them on?

It turns out the parties they represent have a quota system, 50:50 men and women.  So, theses two stunning and brave transwomen took up two women’s places.  

[Rico1304]

I’d be interested to hear which of these declarations is unreasonable or transphobic. 
 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

It turns out the parties they represent have a quota system, 50:50 men and women.  So, theses two stunning and brave transwomen took up two women’s places.  

Two women "took up women's places".

 

If only the poor dears had a big strong clever man like you to protect them from themselves.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

33 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I’d be interested to hear which of these declarations is unreasonable or transphobic. 
 

 

None - as long as they're applied to all women.

[Jack the Sipper]

22 hours ago, Captain Willard said:

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. 

Your view? I thought this was fact a few pages back? Rico seems certain it is. And it's what you based your attack on Starmer on; that he was stifling facts by saying people shouldn't be claiming that only women can have a cervix. Yet, if you're now saying that the concept of a fixed gender is only a 'view' and thus allowing for the possibility that trans men are men, then the claim that only women have cervixes evidently isn't true according to your own rationale.

 

Maybe it is a fact that trans man are women and therefore only women have cervixes and therefore Starmer was stifling facts, as you claimed earlier. But I've yet to see evidence,, least of all from you, who made the claim, to support that assertion, and even if you did it wouldn't detract from my point, which was that even 'facts' shouldn't necessarily be blurted out, without context, without nuance, without fear of causing offence and, most of all, without even being certain that it is a fact to begin with... 

 

You dismiss my point as a philosophical musing, but isn't it somewhat important in the normal run of things to know what facts are, their value, their validity, their place in an argument, and the dangers of presenting all 'facts' as absolutes (I'd hope you'd agree that many claims we in society present as 'facts' aren't as trouble-free as '2+2=4'), like some deranged 'free speech' martyr who thinks he's protected from censure from reasonable people because, well, 'thems the facts innit'.

 

I'll make clear again that I don't even agree with Starmer's view here. In this instance Duffield, in my view, should be free to make that argument and he should accept that as a part of a reasoned ongoing debate - something that's been sorely missing in this shitty black-and-white flame war. I'm taking issue with your wider claim that he's a major left wing politician behaving like the 'thought police' in attempting to stifle facts, which sounds nakedly partisan and sounds like the kind of guff I'd read below the line on The Spectator online articles. And wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

[Rico1304]

24 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

None - as long as they're applied to all women.

My goodness Emperor, your clothes look amazing today.  
 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

My goodness Emperor, your clothes look amazing today.  
 

 

You're cute.

[Rico1304]

30 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Two women "took up women's places".

 

If only the poor dears had a big strong clever man like you to protect them from themselves.

In particular that hat looks amazing on you. 

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You're cute.

(Oh that patronising thing again.  Still not working)! 

[Rico1304]

9 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Your view? I thought this was fact a few pages back? Rico seems certain it is. And it's what you based your attack on Starmer on; that he was stifling facts by saying people shouldn't be claiming that only women can have a cervix. Yet, if you're now saying that the concept of a fixed gender is only a 'view' and thus allowing for the possibility that trans men are men, then the claim that only women have cervixes evidently isn't true according to your own rationale.

 

Maybe it is a fact that trans man are women and therefore only women have cervixes and therefore Starmer was stifling facts, as you claimed earlier. But I've yet to see evidence,, least of all from you, who made the claim, to support that assertion, and even if you did it wouldn't detract from my point, which was that even 'facts' shouldn't necessarily be blurted out, without context, without nuance, without fear of causing offence and, most of all, without even being certain that it is a fact to begin with... 

 

You dismiss my point as a philosophical musing, but isn't it somewhat important in the normal run of things to know what facts are, their value, their validity, their place in an argument, and the dangers of presenting all 'facts' as absolutes (I'd hope you'd agree that many claims we in society present as 'facts' aren't as trouble-free as '2+2=4'), like some deranged 'free speech' martyr who thinks he's protected from censure from reasonable people because, well, 'thems the facts innit'.

 

I'll make clear again that I don't even agree with Starmer's view here. In this instance Duffield, in my view, should be free to make that argument and he should accept that as a part of a reasoned ongoing debate - something that's been sorely missing in this shitty black-and-white flame war. I'm taking issue with your wider claim that he's a major left wing politician behaving like the 'thought police' in attempting to stifle facts, which sounds nakedly partisan and sounds like the kind of guff I'd read below the line on The Spectator online articles. And wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

I think there are a couple of points here, TRA campaigned for the right to change sex on NHS records.  So some of those women transitioning to men would change their record and then not automatically get the notifications based on their sex marker. So, they wouldn’t get invites for smear tests etc.  Then you’ve got TW who demand inclusion to things that logically have no relevance to them and will get invites for the procedures despite not needing them.  

[No2]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

It turns out the parties they represent have a quota system, 50:50 men and women.  So, theses two stunning and brave transwomen took up two women’s places.  

Fair fucks to them and they managed to fool the electorate .

[Rico1304]

11 minutes ago, No2 said:

Fair fucks to them and they managed to fool the electorate .

Yes, I mean the quota was put there for a reason, to get more women into politics but if you can cheat that’s fine.  

[Captain Willard]

54 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Your view? I thought this was fact a few pages back? Rico seems certain it is. And it's what you based your attack on Starmer on; that he was stifling facts by saying people shouldn't be claiming that only women can have a cervix. Yet, if you're now saying that the concept of a fixed gender is only a 'view' and thus allowing for the possibility that trans men are men, then the claim that only women have cervixes evidently isn't true according to your own rationale.

 

Maybe it is a fact that trans man are women and therefore only women have cervixes and therefore Starmer was stifling facts, as you claimed earlier. But I've yet to see evidence,, least of all from you, who made the claim, to support that assertion, and even if you did it wouldn't detract from my point, which was that even 'facts' shouldn't necessarily be blurted out, without context, without nuance, without fear of causing offence and, most of all, without even being certain that it is a fact to begin with... 

 

You dismiss my point as a philosophical musing, but isn't it somewhat important in the normal run of things to know what facts are, their value, their validity, their place in an argument, and the dangers of presenting all 'facts' as absolutes (I'd hope you'd agree that many claims we in society present as 'facts' aren't as trouble-free as '2+2=4'), like some deranged 'free speech' martyr who thinks he's protected from censure from reasonable people because, well, 'thems the facts innit'.

 

I'll make clear again that I don't even agree with Starmer's view here. In this instance Duffield, in my view, should be free to make that argument and he should accept that as a part of a reasoned ongoing debate - something that's been sorely missing in this shitty black-and-white flame war. I'm taking issue with your wider claim that he's a major left wing politician behaving like the 'thought police' in attempting to stifle facts, which sounds nakedly partisan and sounds like the kind of guff I'd read below the line on The Spectator online articles. And wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

In my view, gender is a fact not a subjective construct. Other people think it is not a fact and can be self determined by an individual. I think the logic of that argument falls over if you substitute race for gender but I think other people should be allowed to express their views without fear. I don't like beans on a fry up but I don't threaten people with violence for expressing that preference. 

 

Starmer said "you shouldn't say that" when Duffield said "only women have a cervix" so either he thinks gender is a subjective construct or he saying it is a fact but shouldn't be discussed. Either way, he was trying to shut down the debate rather than backing one of his female MPS who was being threatened by activists for daring to have a different view. 

[Pidge]

Why would you substitute race for gender?

[No2]

41 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Yes, I mean the quota was put there for a reason, to get more women into politics but if you can cheat that’s fine.  

You and others referred to the fact that supporting trans wasn't exactly a vote winner. That very day Germany has proved that may not be correct. I'd vote for a guy willing to chop their dick off to get elected.

[Rico1304]

14 minutes ago, No2 said:

You and others referred to the fact that supporting trans wasn't exactly a vote winner. That very day Germany has proved that may not be correct. I'd vote for a guy willing to chop their dick off to get elected.

I’d wager no one chopped their dick off. 86% don’t.  But if you think keeping women out of politics is a good thing that’s fine.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Here's an interesting thread for people who give a shite about whether trans men live or die. (Everyone else can just skip ahead to the bit where they make some hilariously snarky reference to the Emperor's New Clothes).