Quantcast
Transgender stuff - what's going on? - Page 64 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Gym Beglin

Transgender stuff - what's going on?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, A Red said:

I've tried to understand this but must admit i'm struggling. If tomorrow I decide I am a woman and want to be referred to as such, I am therefore a woman and can use their bogs and changing rooms? If thats right and some bloke wont have sex with me due to my deep voice, stubbly chin and dick, he is therefore a bigot?

Yes, sweetheart. They are. Now come 'ere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moo said:

A legitimate concern of course, but should it be placed above concerns for the welfare/mental health of biological women in safe houses, rape crisis centres etc? 

Are women in safe houses or rape crisis centres more at risk from trans women than from (what Rico would call) "real" women?

I doubt it. 

 

Rates of suicide, self-harm, depression, etc. amongst trans people are much higher than average.

 

It's not about prioritising one individual's welfare over another's.  It's about having a legal and social environment that minimises the risk of harm for all.  Allowing trans people to be themselves is the best way to do that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A Red said:

If thats right and some bloke wont have sex with me due to my deep voice, stubbly chin and dick, he is therefore a bigot?

I've had worse.

Share this post


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

No. That's what you are saying.

 

You are sticking to the rigid, traditional notion of two boxes - one marked "Men" and one marked "Women" - as though that were a correct and comprehensive way to define all humans. Any deviation from those two boxes must just be an aberration based on "feelings".  These men just need to pull themselves together, wear some trousers and forget all about this nonsense!

 

That view isn’t supported by science. 

 

If I am not mistaken, trans women don't have a problem with "rigid" notion of two boxes, they just want to swap one for the other.

Share this post


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

Are women in safe houses or rape crisis centres more at risk from trans women than from (what Rico would call) "real" women?

I doubt it. 

 

 

 

Not necessarily more at risk (though I've no idea about the research if it exists) but it's not just about that.  These are safe spaces, safe havens, traditionally for biological women amongst other biological women. I don't know if these vulnerable women should be forced overnight to accept what they might perceive as a risk and be expected to brush off their fears, otherwise it ceases to be a safe haven and you are putting the needs of another "group" above theirs. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

No. That's what you are saying.

 

You are sticking to the rigid, traditional notion of two boxes - one marked "Men" and one marked "Women" - as though that were a correct and comprehensive way to define all humans. Any deviation from those two boxes must just be an aberration based on "feelings".  These men just need to pull themselves together, wear some trousers and forget all about this nonsense!

 

That view isn’t supported by science. 

Oh man. So show me your science that sex in humans isn’t dimorphic. This could win you a noble prize.  I’m particularly looking forward to the human who’s enough man and woman to make themselves pregnant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A Red said:

I've tried to understand this but must admit i'm struggling. If tomorrow I decide I am a woman and want to be referred to as such, I am therefore a woman and can use their bogs and changing rooms? If thats right and some bloke wont have sex with me due to my deep voice, stubbly chin and dick, he is therefore a bigot?


I demand that you tell us if you’d suck a female dick or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Captain Turdseye said:


I demand that you tell us if you’d suck a female dick or not. 

Well there’s the fella who’s a man some of the week and a woman the rest.  Think he won a woman in business award  - now on the day the award was made and he was a man does that count? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

Well there’s the fella who’s a man some of the week and a woman the rest.  Think he won a woman in business award  - now on the day the award was made and he was a man does that count? 


You’re misgendering her straight off the bat which portrays a total lack of respect and human decency. Do the right thing and admit that you’re happy to suck her off. 

Share this post


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


You’re misgendering her straight off the bat which portrays a total lack of respect and human decency. Do the right thing and admit that you’re happy to suck her off. 

I’d suck him  and her off.  In fact, at midnight I could do both.  

Share this post


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

I’d suck him  and her off.  In fact, at midnight I could do both.  


The fact that left a double space after the word ‘him’ tells me you’d drifted off into fantasy land there thinking about men’s    dicks. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

We disagree on loads of stuff, but I’ve never seen you (for want of a better word) hoodwinked on something before.  

Pretty much what I thought about your incorrect, unscientific notion that all humans are definitively, exclusively and immutably either male or female. 

 

The more we learn about genetics, the more we reach the conclusion (which we often reach in all areas of science) "it's more complicated than you think".

 

The old certainties about gender have crashed against improved scientific knowledge in much the same way that the old certainties about race did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Pretty much what I thought about your incorrect, unscientific notion that all humans are definitively, exclusively and immutably either male or female. 

 

The more we learn about genetics, the more we reach the conclusion (which we often reach in all areas of science) "it's more complicated than you think".

 

The old certainties about gender have crashed against improved scientific knowledge in much the same way that the old certainties about race did.

But you’ve used gender instead of sex.  So I can’t take it seriously.  There are 2 sexes. That’s a fact.  Large and small gametes. That’s it. The end. 
 

unless you provide the scientific papers to prove otherwise.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change - true loads of evidence 

vaccine safety - true loads of evidence 

religions - not true no evidence 

sex is dimorphic - true loads of evidence 

 

same rules, same conclusion. 

Share this post


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

But you’ve used gender instead of sex.  So I can’t take it seriously.  There are 2 sexes. That’s a fact.  Large and small gametes. That’s it. The end. 
 

unless you provide the scientific papers to prove otherwise.  

See the post directly above this one of yours.

 

Don't ask me for the papers.  Ask those nice people at 'Nature'.

Share this post


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

See the post directly above this one of yours.

 

Don't ask me for the papers.  Ask those nice people at 'Nature'.

This references your 2015 article in nature.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex-11581638089

 

99.98%. You’ve no idea what you are talking about. It’s ideology. 

Share this post


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

This references your 2015 article in nature.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex-11581638089

 

99.98%. You’ve no idea what you are talking about. It’s ideology. 

I'm not paying to get behind the firewall. 

 

What does it say about the 2018 Nature article?  Anything other than "it's entirely representative of the results you get when you Google something like 'New Scientist is sex binary"?

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

×