• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

TERFs crash London Pride

The abolition of patriarchy of course, there ain't no gender dysphoria in a non-gendered society.

And there wouldn't be any need for gay marriage in an entirely asexual society.

'Good faith' arguments indeed.

Of course this would not in the least bit help anyone but at least you can grab onto justification for your own prejudices and that is all that really matters. Right?
 
And there wouldn't be any need for gay marriage in an entirely asexual society.

'Good faith' arguments indeed.

Of course this would not in the least bit help anyone but at least you can grab onto justification for your own prejudices and that is all that really matters. Right?

Do you recognise a difference between a non-gendered society and an asexual one? If so, how are they different?
 
Of course this would not in the least bit help anyone but at least you can grab onto justification for your own prejudices and that is all that really matters. Right?

Are you seeing the irony in that, pretty much by definition, the abolition of patriarchy would help women? I mean, even if abolition of patriarchy and having a non-gendered society wouldn't help against gender dysphoria - which I still think it would - then it still doesn't mean that it wouldn't help anyone. Misogyny is pretty rampant in genderism indeed, as is projection.
 
Are you seeing the irony in that, pretty much by definition, the abolition of patriarchy would help women? I mean, even if abolition of patriarchy and having a non-gendered society wouldn't help against gender dysphoria - which I still think it would - then it still doesn't mean that it wouldn't help anyone. Misogyny is pretty rampant in genderism indeed, as is projection.

Gender is a thing. Just like race is a thing. Sexual orientation is a thing.

Advocating for it not to be a thing to solve trans issues is about as sensible as advocating for people to not have to breathe oxygen to solve death from drowning.

And that's why I confidently say you don't have any concern for trans people. Your only concern is finding an argument that works for your prejudices.
 
Yes I do, but I also recognise the similarity between two nonsense suggestions that don't solve a problem but are merely used to ignore it.

RE: a non-gendered society and an asexual one:

Please define what you think the differences and similarities are. Thanks.
 
And despite the lying claims that anyone who claims they're trans is recognized as such in the UK, it takes years and a lot of work to get a Gender Recognition Certificate, which is the only official recognition of transpeople.


I'm somewhat tired of repeating this, but the ENTIRELY TRUTHFUL cause for concern is the proposal (from both the Westminster and the Holyrood governments) that all these years and all that work should be eliminated, and that in future (if these proposals go ahead) all that will be required to gain a Gender Recognition Certificate will be a self-declaration of being trans.

The current brouhaha relates to this proposed legislative change and all the meetings being disrupted by the militant trans lobby are being called to allow people to discuss the proposals. The government has specifically said that the proposals should be freely debated, but the trans activists are hell-bent on stopping that happening.

The other point is that we are now in the position where de facto all anyone has to do even now to be recognised socially as trans is claim to be trans. The vast majority of the trans rights activists currently insisting on using women's lavatories and changing rooms and so on do not have a GRC. It has become "transphobic" to ask for a GRC or to deny the status of trans to anyone who claims to be trans.
 
I'm somewhat tired of repeating this, but the ENTIRELY TRUTHFUL cause for concern is the proposal (from both the Westminster and the Holyrood governments) that all these years and all that work should be eliminated, and that in future (if these proposals go ahead) all that will be required to gain a Gender Recognition Certificate will be a self-declaration of being trans.

What do you think the requirements should be?
 
What do you think the requirements should be?


Well, clearly, anyone who's already declared themselves trans without proper authorization should have to atone for their lawless conduct before they again become eligible for consideration for any such prized authorized status. Ideally, they should spend a lengthy cooling-off period living as their born biological gender to show their good faith, after which they might be allowed to start the application process over.

Sort of like how it works in the U.S. with immigrants. Call it gender deportation, as a necessary component of gender immigration reform.
 
I'm somewhat tired of repeating this, but the ENTIRELY TRUTHFUL cause for concern is the proposal (from both the Westminster and the Holyrood governments) that all these years and all that work should be eliminated, and that in future (if these proposals go ahead) all that will be required to gain a Gender Recognition Certificate will be a self-declaration of being trans.


So, you approve of essentially treating transgended people as though they're mentally ill, which is what the current legislation does, and demanding they fit into a strictly-binary, culturally-defined image of "male" and "female" in order to be recognized as trans?

I'm surprised you even accept the current system, given how you've persistently demonized transpeople, and referred to them as a "trans cult".

I'm finding this objection more than a disingenuous, and your evasion of the main issue here yawningly typical for the bigoted outlook. I grow more than somewhat tired of your circumlocutions and evasions and conspiracy theories and fearmongering against transpeople. Any chance you're going to provide evidence to back up any of your assertions? No? I thought not, since we're 40 pages in and so far not a scrap.

I wouldn't even bother responding, but I know that there are other people reading these thread that may benefit from an outlook which is based in humanity and compassion, instead of fear and scapegoating.

The other point is that we are now in the position where de facto all anyone has to do even now to be recognised socially as trans is claim to be trans. The vast majority of the trans rights activists currently insisting on using women's lavatories and changing rooms and so on do not have a GRC. It has become "transphobic" to ask for a GRC or to deny the status of trans to anyone who claims to be trans.


And here we go with the boogeyman again. Care to provide evidence that this is actually happening, and that women are at more of a threat from transpeople than they are from other women?

Just as a quick question, do you demand that gay and lesbian people go through several years of medical evaluation in order to be recognized as homosexual, and that they should be required to carry a card "proving" their homosexuality? I wonder what all those women worried about transpeople in their bathrooms and changing rooms think of the fact that they can already be oogled by lesbians?

I seem to recall other groups of people before forced to carry papers or symbols that identified them as members of a particular out-group in the past, wonder if you remember how that worked out.
 
Last edited:
Got any evidence for this "born biological gender"? The pink & blue brain theory doesn't have much, if any, evidence behind it.


I have evidence for mine. However, I suspect I'd be in a spot of trouble here if I were to show it to you.

Also, just in case you missed the subtle hint of sarcasm in my previous post... there was a subtle hint of sarcasm in my previous post.
 
So, you approve of essentially treating transgended people as though they're mentally ill, which is what the current legislation does, and demanding they fit into a strictly-binary, culturally-defined image of "male" and "female" in order to be recognized as trans?

Postmodernism at its best, "male" and "female" are "culturally-defined images" - sure, sexual reproduction among mammals is just a "culturally-defined image" and so are the two distinct types of gametes (spermatozoa for males and ova for females) involved. Science doesn't exist, knowledge doesn't exist, it's all just a "culturally-defined image"...

And here we go with the boogeyman again. Care to provide evidence that this is actually happening, and that women are at more of a threat from transpeople than they are from other women?

Just as a quick question, do you demand that gay and lesbian people go through several years of medical evaluation in order to be recognized as homosexual, and that they should be required to carry a card "proving" their homosexuality? I wonder what all those women worried about transpeople in their bathrooms and changing rooms think of the fact that they can already be oogled by lesbians?

What a great idea, show us the statistics of voyeurism crimes (such as installing cameras in public toilets) and show us how many are committed by men and how many by women.
 
Last edited:
So, you think biological sex and gender are the same thing?


I think there is a significant correlation between them, which suffices for one to be evidence of the other. (Notice I did not offer proof.)

Thank you for asking so rudely, though.
 
I think there is a significant correlation between them, which suffices for one to be evidence of the other.

Correlation alone is basically never sufficient evidence of anything. :)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2018-11-23 at 7.09.42 PM.png
    Screenshot 2018-11-23 at 7.09.42 PM.png
    76.2 KB · Views: 4
Correlation alone is basically never sufficient evidence of anything. :)


Oh my. That being the case, the phrase I used that caveman objected to, "born biological gender," couldn't possibly mean true gender. It would have to instead mean something like, the gender most highly statistically correlated with the person's particular genitalia and other biological sexual characteristics.

How odd that that's exactly what I intended it to mean, in my post which, with the obvious sarcasm taken into account, was strongly in opposition to onerous legal regulation of transsexuality.

Context, meaning, who cares, though, right? Bad magic words! Must smite! Or something. :rolleyes:
 
Oh my. That being the case, the phrase I used that caveman objected to, "born biological gender," couldn't possibly mean true gender. It would have to instead mean something like, the gender most highly statistically correlated with the person's particular genitalia and other biological sexual characteristics.

How odd that that's exactly what I intended it to mean...

Why not just say "biological sex" or "natal sex"?

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/natal+sex

natal sex
A baby's birth sex

:confused:
 

Back
Top Bottom