• 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.
GlennB said:
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.



'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?
Click to expand...

Sorry you cannot comprehend the sentence, 'she starts with a false premise' (i.e., boys school and girls school = two sexes only, as I spelt it out) .

Do try to keep up.
 
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...

Sorry, you mischievously made a knowingly false claim that I had not provide a quote, when had you clicked back a couple of times to discover what Emily's Cat was referring to, you would have discovered exactly to what I was referring. You called me a liar about there being a quote but don't have the integrity to admit it or to apologise. Macho you.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

She did not make the quote you attributed to her. A decent person would own up to this. Really it’s so much easier to say “sorry she didn’t say what I claimed”.
 
Vixen said:
Sorry, you mischievously made a knowingly false claim that I had not provide a quote, when had you clicked back a couple of times to discover what Emily's Cat was referring to, you would have discovered exactly to what I was referring. You called me a liar about there being a quote but don't have the integrity to admit it or to apologise. Macho you.
Click to expand...

Show me the ******* quote. Easy.
 
GlennB said:
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.



'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?
Click to expand...

Did you find my response to Rolfe's link? No? But you felt qualified to call me names.
 
Francesca R said:
You were indulging in classic ad-hom:
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.
Click to expand...

So there we have it: there was a quote and there was my reponse (so much for lionking and GlennB aggressively calling me a liar!)

"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?"

Now play the ball and not the man. Please address my response, which you are free to disagree with.


It is not ad hom for me to criticise Braverman, by the way.
 
Vixen said:
So there we have it: there was a quote and there was my reponse (so much for lionking and GlennB aggressively calling me a liar!)

"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?"

Now play the ball and not the man. Please address my response, which you are free to disagree with.


It is not ad hom for me to criticise Braverman, by the way.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. Braverman didn’t say what you claimed she said. You have admitted it. You have lied. Apologise.
 
Vixen said:
So there we have it: there was a quote and there was my reponse (so much for lionking and GlennB aggressively calling me a liar!)
Click to expand...

I haven't called you a liar anywhere in this thread. I haven't used that word at all, in fact.

Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

She didn't say that at any point, which is why people are challenging you.
 
A false premise is an incorrect proposition or assumption that forms the basis of an argument and renders it logically unsound.

For example, in the argument “all birds can fly, and penguins can’t fly, so penguins aren’t birds”, the premise that “all birds can fly” is false, since some birds can’t fly, and this renders the argument logically unsound.

Accordingly, an argument that contains false premises can be referred to as an argument from false premises.

Because false premises are common, and because they stand at the core of many logical fallacies, it’s important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about false premises, see how you can respond to their use by others, and understand what you can do to avoid using them yourself.
Click to expand...
https://effectiviology.com/false-premise/

Substitute the assumption, boys schools are full of boys and girls schools are full of girls and there you have a whole argument predicated on a false premise that there is something inherently immutable about who populates such schools.
 
GlennB said:
I haven't called you a liar anywhere in this thread. I haven't used that word at all, in fact.



She didn't say that at any point, which is why people are challenging you.
Click to expand...

A false premise is rarely recognised by people who lack cognitive ability, such as Braverman.

That is not the point anyway. You and lionking falsely claimed (a) there was no link/quote and that (b) I had not stated my objection to it.

All clear now?
 
Vixen said:
A false premise is rarely recognised by people who lack cognitive ability, such as Braverman.

That is not the point anyway. You and lionking falsely claimed (a) there was no link/quote and that (b) I had not stated my objection to it.
All clear now?
Click to expand...

Nope. We (and others) said that Braverman had never used the words that you attributed to her. There was, and is, no such quote of hers.
 
Vixen said:
I believe you understand perfectly well.


Can't admit you boobed because you couldn't be bothered to click back.
Click to expand...

Oh Christ, I quoted things she actually said in that article. You quoted something she didn’t say.

Show me where she said, word for word, what you claim she said.
 
Vixen said:
So there we have it: there was a quote and there was my reponse [ . . . ] Please address my response, which you are free to disagree with.
Click to expand...
The red bit is you not Braverman. Putting up your own straw man isn't addressing any of her content.

It is not ad hom for me to criticise Braverman, by the way.
Click to expand...
It is the way you've done it.
 
lionking said:
Oh Christ, I quoted things she actually said in that article. You quoted something she didn’t say.

Show me where she said, word for word, what you claim she said.
Click to expand...

Read the following:

In law, single sex services are intended for one sex only: that is the very thing permitted by schedule 3. It follows that it is not possible to admit a biological male to a single-sex service for women without destroying its intrinsic nature as such: once there are XY chromosome adults using it, however they define themselves personally, it becomes mixed-sex. The existence of a Gender Recognition Certificate can create a legal position but cannot change biological reality. The operation of the Equality Act is such that the permission to discriminate on grounds of gender reassignment is permission to discriminate against someone who may be the ’right’ biological sex for a particular activity but has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
Click to expand...
https://policyexchange.org.uk/pxevents/keynote-speech-by-rt-hon-suella-braverman-mp/

If you cannot see that is begging the question, then I cannot help you.

The false premise is that there is either male or female and ne'er the twain shall meet. That is arguable, of course, but Braverman doesn't even recognise that it is open to debate and has not been settled.

Thus, it is a false premise when she blabbers on about boys schools and girls schools being a natural state of affair. Instead of addressing the scientific/biological issue, she does a legerdemain and reverts to 'law' = a dogma; an absolute. See how she side steps explaining what she means by a single sex and diverts straight into her absolute law, rather like Sharia Law saying 'thou shalt not borrow with interest' because that is the law':

Yes, it is lawful for a single sex school to refuse to admit a child of the opposite biological sex who identifies as transgender. This can be a blanket policy to maintain the school as single sex. This does not constitute unlawful direct discrimination on grounds of sex under schedule 11 nor does it constitute unlawful indirect discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment. This is clearly a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Yes, it is lawful for a mixed school to refuse to allow a biologically and legally male child, who identifies as a trans-girl, from using the girls’ toilets. This does not constitute direct sex discrimination and is not unlawful indirect discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment. Indeed, if the school did allow a trans-girl to use the girl’s toilets this might be unlawful indirect discrimination against the female children. Further, in law, there is a duty to provide separate single sex toilets, a breach of which would be unlawful under the School premises (England) Regulations 2012 and the Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014.
Similarly, yes, it is lawful for a mixed school to refuse a biologically and legally male child who identifies as a trans girl from using a single sex girls’ dormitory. This is neither direct sex discrimination or unlawful indirect discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment. Sufficient comparable accommodation must be provided to both girls and boys. Protecting girls’ privacy, dignity and safety are eminently legitimate aims.
Yes, it can be lawful for schools to refuse to use the preferred opposite-sex pronouns of a This does not necessarily constitute direct discrimination on grounds of sex, particularly if unsupported by the child’s parents or by medical advice. Nor is it necessarily indirect discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment where a school has considered and can justify the approach. As set out in the interim Cass report, this is ‘social transitioning’ and is not a neutral act. It is a serious intervention and should only be done upon the advice of an independent medical practitioner. Furthermore, schools and teachers who socially transition a child without the knowledge or consent of parents or without medical advice increase their exposure to a negligence claim for breach of their duty of care to that child.
Yes, it can be lawful for a school to refuse to allow a biologically male child, who identifies as a trans girl, to wear a girls’ uniform. This will be a significant part of social transition and the inherent risks of that could present an ample legitimate aim. Therefore, this does not necessarily constitute unlawful direct sex discrimination nor is it likely to constitute unlawful indirect discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment. Court of Appeal authority permits different dress codes for male and female employees and no rational distinction can be made for school uniforms.
Yes, it is lawful for a school to refuse a biologically and legally male child who identifies as a trans-girl from participating in girls’ single sex sporting activities. This does not constitute unlawful direct sex discrimination nor is it unlawful indirect discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment. This single sex exception is based on the average performance of male and female participants.
Click to expand...
ibid

We are none the wiser in which way Forstater, Rowling and Braverman have established their 'single sex' theory that goes beyond the legal definition of 'philosophical belief which excludes current information'.

Maybe you believe it is a self-evident just as Braverman, Truss, Rowling and Forstater does. (But not Penny Mordaunt, Zahawi [chancellor) or Judge Tayler.)
 
Vixen said:
Read the following:

https://policyexchange.org.uk/pxevents/keynote-speech-by-rt-hon-suella-braverman-mp/

If you cannot see that is begging the question, then I cannot help you.

The false premise is that there is either male or female and ne'er the twain shall meet. That is arguable, of course, but Braverman doesn't even recognise that it is open to debate and has not been settled.

Thus, it is a false premise when she blabbers on about boys schools and girls schools being a natural state of affair. Instead of addressing the scientific/biological issue, she does a legerdemain and reverts to 'law' = a dogma; an absolute. See how she side steps explaining what she means by a single sex and diverts straight into her absolute law, rather like Sharia Law saying 'thou shalt not borrow with interest' because that is the law':

ibid

We are none the wiser in which way Forstater, Rowling and Braverman have established their 'single sex' theory that goes beyond the legal definition of 'philosophical belief which excludes current information'.

Maybe you believe it is a self-evident just as Braverman, Truss, Rowling and Forstater does. (But not Penny Mordaunt, Zahawi [chancellor) or Judge Tayler.)
Click to expand...

Yes, very interesting. But nothing to do with you falsely quoting Braverman. Fail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom