• 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.

Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Three things:

  • I note you don't have the decency to apologise for falsely accusing me of lying when I said there was a quote if you 'click back.

    ...

    ...
Click to expand...

If the quote you're referring to is the one that Rolfe provided then its contents don't even remotely resemble what you're claiming Braverman's position to be. But maye it was a different quote? You haven't said yet.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
If the quote you're referring to is the one that Rolfe provided then its contents don't even remotely resemble what you're claiming Braverman's position to be. But maye it was a different quote? You haven't said yet.
Click to expand...

d4m10n said:
Just post the quote or retract the claim, Vixen.

No one is going to shame you either way.
Click to expand...

Honestly, why does it matter? The only persons she's poisoning the well for herself. It's not like clearing this up is going to change anything for her or anyone else.

She lodged her spurious dismissal. You've established that it's spurious. Historically, when a thread reaches an impasse like this, the best solution is to just move on. Do you really want to spend the next ten pages trying to nail jelly to the wall? Because that's the only place this is headed, now.
 
I dunno man, seems a bit unskeptical to make claims and not even try to back them up. I'll drop it for now but I'm not going to let it go.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
Francesca R said:
Aren't they?
Click to expand...
Okay, well, there should be no shame in retraction assuming we're trying to encourage an evidence-based approach. If the evidence for a given claim doesn't exist, a skeptic ought to change their mind.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Okay, well, there should be no shame in retraction assuming we're trying to encourage an evidence-based approach. If the evidence for a given claim doesn't exist, a skeptic ought to change their mind.
Click to expand...

Yeah, or retract a rash claim. For the moment we're not 100% sure that the article Rolfe linked is the one Vixen is referring to. Still waiting to hear, but I really hope it doesn't amount to nothing more than 'click back'
 
Francesca R said:
I think that is precisely what you do. I'm not the only one to think this. Your hatred for Braverman is such that you are vehemently opposed to anything she says regardless of what it is. Rather like a Trump supporter would behave

There are a few of us who have little love for the Tories in general but we nonetheless agree with her if she talks sense on some issues around trans rights such as what Rolfe linked before. Because of what she says, not because of who she is. You seem unable to do that sort of thing。
Click to expand...

I was referring to Braverman's reasoning ability (none, that I can see).

She described JK Rowling, the Harry Potter author who has campaigned to protect female-only spaces, as a “heroine” of hers. “Very brave, very courageous. I’m on her side.”
Click to expand...
TIMES

There is zero that is rational or scientific thought at all. She can barely grasp legal concepts. She thinks the Human Rights Act is just there to stand in her way.
 
GlennB said:
If the quote you're referring to is the one that Rolfe provided then its contents don't even remotely resemble what you're claiming Braverman's position to be. But maye it was a different quote? You haven't said yet.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen you contribute to this thread before. Can I ask you what your interest is, other than answering some kind of 'Iron John'-style clarion call as a laddish attempt to help out another lad desperate to keep macho male hegemony in control of the thread.


As for the Braverman opening premise, see further up thread for my comments. Click back. If you cannot understand the point I was making, I am afraid I cannot teach you the cognitive skills required to spot the logical flaws in an argument.
 
d4m10n said:
Okay, well, there should be no shame in retraction assuming we're trying to encourage an evidence-based approach. If the evidence for a given claim doesn't exist, a skeptic ought to change their mind.
Click to expand...

Er, hell will freeze over before I make a claim that Braverman's thoughts are in any way well-founded.


Honestly, can you really not see how incredibly stupid she is?
 
Some of Braverman's views on transgender recognition:

● Pupils who were born male should not be able to use girls’ lavatories or changing facilities.

● The Girls’ Day School Trust was right not to admit boys who identify as girls, protecting their single-sex status.

● It is “outrageous” if a pupil, teacher or parent could not question someone’s assertion they were transgender, after an 18-year-old pupil said she was forced out of her school in a transphobia row.
Click to expand...
TIMES

Are people really willing to die on her hill?
 
Vixen said:
I haven't seen you contribute to this thread before. Can I ask you what your interest is, other than answering some kind of 'Iron John'-style clarion call as a laddish attempt to help out another lad desperate to keep macho male hegemony in control of the thread.
Click to expand...

I have contributed to this and previous parts of the discussion. The forum 'search' option might help you. Your 'macho male hegemony' comment is laughable.

Vixen said:
As for the Braverman opening premise, see further up thread for my comments. Click back. If you cannot understand the point I was making, I am afraid I cannot teach you the cognitive skills required to spot the logical flaws in an argument.
Click to expand...

'Click back'? I did and reached a dead end without finding the quote you claim is to be found by following arrows to previous comments, which is why I searched the thread and looked for a quote. I could only find Rolfe's link.

So, how about you 'click back' and show us the quote?
 
Vixen said:
Some of Braverman's views on transgender recognition:

TIMES

Are people really willing to die on her hill?
Click to expand...

Thank you. So she didn’t say what you claim she said. I will take this as an apology. Yes I know you will never apologise for any of your lies, but this is as close as we will get.
 
lionking said:
Thank you. So she didn’t say what you claim she said. I will take this as an apology. Yes I know you will never apologise for any of your lies, but this is as close as we will get.
Click to expand...

I said she was acting on a false premise. So you lack the honour to apologise
to me for falsely claiming I was lying when I said (a) there was a quote and that (b) I had addressed it.

All because you wanted to make a knee jerk statement.

Instead of addressing my response to Rolfe's link, you made up a whole bunch of lies and character assassinations about my failing to provide any quote. This comes across as bullying.

I am glad you got a fleeting sense of oneupmanship in so doing.
 
Vixen said:
I was referring to Braverman's reasoning ability (none, that I can see).
Click to expand...
You were indulging in classic ad-hom:
Vixen said:
Seriously, Rolfe? You believe far right fascist, Suellen Bravermann, has powers of reasoning?

Her first premise falls flat on its face for a start, 'single sex schools' supposedly proves the rule there is male and female and cannot be adjusted for. Well, I went to a co-educational school and boys and girls got along together just fine.

I cannot dignify anything Braverman has to say with a response.

Doesn't she belong to some weird cult where the cult leader was perving on the female devotees?
Click to expand...
As in, zero argument from you about any of the content of Braverman's address (to a right-wing think tank, which was linked in full), and exclusive attacking of the individual . . . . "If she's for it, I'm against it no matter what"

As noted already, you're headed firmly down the road of irrational polarised and populist nonsense reasoning. Zero rational thought at all involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom