• 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.

Trans Women are not Women

Status
Not open for further replies.
GlennB said:
I'd suggest that 'getting used to nakedness' not be forced on unwilling people by allowing anyone who feels like it to expose their body to members of the opposite sex according to their whim.
Click to expand...

Sure, just like they shouldn't be forced to expose themselves in front of members of the same sex against their will either.
 
Francesca R said:
There's plenty of other things that some men would like women to just get used to. I mean, y'know, it's all just banter. And a bit of fun. Can't she see the funny side? I mean I thought it was a flippin compliment. Jesus.
Click to expand...

And yet people seem to not understand why female nipples are so different than male nipples and must legally be covered or face serious criminal penalties. It is simple right?
 
ponderingturtle said:
And yet people seem to not understand why female nipples are so different than male nipples and must legally be covered or face serious criminal penalties. It is simple right?
Click to expand...

And some people don't understand a woman in a skirt isn't just begging for it.

It is simple, right?
 
DragonLady said:
And some people don't understand a woman in a skirt isn't just begging for it.

It is simple, right?
Click to expand...

And that is why we need to force all women to wear long dresses and make going topless at the beach illegal. It is about allowed vs compelled. Changing stalls available makes such things not an issue.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Changing stalls available makes such things not an issue.
Click to expand...

I do wonder whether there is an argument against private stalls.

(Not out on a hypothetical limb here, there are plenty of private change rooms at my local gymnasium, each about 6'x6' or so in terms of floorspace, with securely lockable doors.)
 
d4m10n said:
I do wonder whether there is an argument against private stalls.

(Not out on a hypothetical limb here, there are plenty of private change rooms at my local gymnasium, each about 6'x6' or so in terms of floorspace, with securely lockable doors.)
Click to expand...
The argument is expense. A certain square footage can accommodate many more communal changers than private changers.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Changing stalls available makes such things not an issue.
Click to expand...

Which requires converting or rebuilding existing facilities, and that's not always even physically possible.

But there's far more - try googling mixed changing room complaints
 to get the gist, for example:

"The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

The data, obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Sunday Times, suggests that unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities.

Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities."

The Independent
 
GlennB said:
Which requires converting or rebuilding existing facilities, and that's not always even physically possible.

But there's far more - try googling mixed changing room complaints
 to get the gist, for example:

"The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

The data, obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Sunday Times, suggests that unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities.

Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities."

The Independent
Click to expand...

Interesting read
 
Meanwhile a gay Dr Who writer gets deleted out of a new BBC Dr who short story book, for saying

It is “impossible for a person to change their biological sex”and thinks nobody is “born in the wrong body.”

And saying it is wrong to "medicalise children who don’t conform to gender stereotypes".

Second one is arguable and a bit dumb to say to me, but see nothing wrong with the other two.

And the second meaning being taken out of a book about an imaginary character seems a tad OTT.

Apparently, demands from the woke ones.

https://www.rt.com/uk/461077-gareth-roberts-bbc-books-transgender/
 
You really think it's "arguable" that it's not wrong to medicalise children who don't conform to medical stereotypes? After everything we've been through in this thread?

I mean, I know there are people who think it's all fine and dandy, and nobody is ostracising them for it, but to imply that the opposing view might be questionable seems really weird to me. I think it's child abuse.
 
Rolfe said:
You really think it's "arguable" that it's not wrong to medicalise children who don't conform to medical stereotypes? After everything we've been through in this thread?

I mean, I know there are people who think it's all fine and dandy, and nobody is ostracising them for it, but to imply that the opposing view might be questionable seems really weird to me. I think it's child abuse.
Click to expand...

No

Which is why I said second and not third

2nd was "and thinks nobody is “born in the wrong body.”
 
Sorry

re-reading my post I can see how it was a bit of a mess on my part

3 points he said

1) “impossible for a person to change their biological sex”
2) thinks nobody is “born in the wrong body.”
3) saying it is wrong to "medicalise children who don’t conform to gender stereotypes".

The one I meant was arguable was 2, but didn't warrant erasing from a book

Apologies
 
cullennz said:
Sorry

re-reading my post I can see how it was a bit of a mess on my part

3 points he said

1) “impossible for a person to change their biological sex”
2) thinks nobody is “born in the wrong body.”
3) saying it is wrong to "medicalise children who don’t conform to gender stereotypes".

The one I meant was arguable was 2, but didn't warrant erasing from a book

Apologies
Click to expand...

Of course no one is doing 3, being gender non conforming isn't what gets children on puberty blockers it is being trans. I girl who identifies as a girl but is a tomboy isn't getting medicalized anymore than a boy who identifies as a boy and likes dresses.

The people who make these arguments rarely seem like the type to say be fine if the are cis men and grew breasts to just say it is fine. And the same with cis women who say get beards. This is natural and should not cause them any bother after all.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Of course no one is doing 3, being gender non conforming isn't what gets children on puberty blockers it is being trans. I girl who identifies as a girl but is a tomboy isn't getting medicalized anymore than a boy who identifies as a boy and likes dresses.

The people who make these arguments rarely seem like the type to say be fine if the are cis men and grew breasts to just say it is fine. And the same with cis women who say get beards. This is natural and should not cause them any bother after all.
Click to expand...

I kind of meant arguable against "his" statement, which is what you just did and I myself would say.

I am just saying that it is the only controversial one in amongst the three statements with different types of people, but even then it wasn't worth ditching him

I was just trying vainly to see the reasons for his ditching from others eyes and in the end just made a hash of a post.
 
cullennz said:
I kind of meant arguable against "his" statement, which is what you just did and I myself would say.

I am just saying that it is the only controversial one in amongst the three statements with different types of people, but even then it wasn't worth ditching him

I was just trying vainly to see the reasons for his ditching from others eyes and in the end just made a hash of a post.
Click to expand...

Of course if he was talking about trans children and their puberty blockers statement 3 is wrong and also bigoted. And the first statement is meaningless outside of being part of a transphobic statement.

I know bigots are good people and you need to keep working closely and be their friend but not everyone thinks that way. I wonder how much the guy would love to work with and argue against the firing of someone making similar homophobic statements?
 
ponderingturtle said:
I know bigots are good people and you need to keep working closely and be their friend but not everyone thinks that way. I wonder how much the guy would love to work with and argue against the firing of someone making similar homophobic statements?
Click to expand...

No offence, but we have no idea

It is a completely hypothetical question

And I am sure there would be just as much twitter ranting if there was.

Whether one of the tweets was him arguing is a complete unknown
 
These whole twitter things are why I have never gone near the thing apart from creating a pretty much fake account to follow a few people.

The whole thing is just one ugly joint to me, full of easily misinterpreted sentences (not in this case) and bashing

I have never seen why people want to even go there regularly
 
His statements in context:

For the record this is my opinion on transgenderism and its ideology, with no humour or irony attached.

I’ve rejected restrictive cultural gender stereotypes for as long as I can remember. I consider them to be very often harmful and constricting, especially for girls and women. The culture I enjoy most and the artists I like most are people who laugh at, bend and play with these roles.

I don’t believe in gender identity. It is impossible for a person to change their biological sex. I don’t believe anybody is born in the wrong body.

I think it’s wrong to – write a falsehood into law; compel people by law to speak words they do not believe; rewrite the law to remove women’s biological sex-based rights and protections; reinforce gender stereotypes; medicalise children who don’t conform to gender stereotypes. That’s it.
Click to expand...

Full statement:

https://medium.com/@zmangareth/statement-on-bbc-books-and-transgenderism-dd7ad0c9231a
 
cullennz said:
Cheers

Sounds reasonable except for middle bit where he purposefully/or mistakenly confuses biological sex with gender identification

Edit: Which I still don't think he should be ditched for
Click to expand...

You can read those as separate, stand-alone sentences, in which case there is no confusion between biological sex and gender identity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom