Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Rolfe said:
Excellent article here, from Australia.

www.abc.net.au

Are trans youth receiving the healthcare they need? - ABC Religion & Ethics

Over the last 15 years, the number of children and adolescents seeking medical help for gender dysphoria has rapidly increased in Australia. Yet the current guidelines leave a lot to be desired when it comes to this complex area of healthcare.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
Gender ideology and the risks of gender-affirming care​
The ideological premises of gender-affirming care are that, irrespective of age:​
- children know their gender and healthcare needs; ​
- their gender identity will remain stable;​
- affirmation (social, medical and surgical) is necessary to assist mental well-being; ​
- incongruence between gender identity and biological sexed reality is normal; ​
- and any distress experienced by youth is the result of intersectional vulnerabilities and prejudice.​
​
This is completely wrong.
Children of single digit ages hardly know what they want in their school lunch tomorrow, let alone what gender even means. Teenagers usually aren't even sure about their career paths. Its often whatever takes their fancy at any given time. Over the last year, my own 16 year old granddaughter has considered everything from being rural veterinarian, though training as an army field medic, to becoming a translator at the UN. She still hasn't decided for sure.

And "incongruence between gender identity and biological sexed reality" is what gender dysphoria is all about. That's mental condition - and mental conditions are NOT normal. Gender dyshoria is a fad that many children will grow out of, as evidenced by the increasing number of adults who transitioned as children, now suffering buyer's remorse, and wanting to detransition. Tragically, it is too late for many, who have been butchered by the medical profession, and will suffer the delitarious effects of medical malfeasance for the rest of their lives.​
​
Australian governmental institutions have embraced gender ideology, as is evidenced by the changing definitions of commonly used terms on governmental websites, the replacement of “sex” with “gender” as a protected characteristic in anti-discrimination legislation, the implementation of anti-conversion therapy legislation, and the threat of discrimination claims from the human rights commissions if doctors fail to use preferred pronouns during consultations. This legal restriction that Australian doctors now face compels them to affirm a child’s gender identity and disregard the importance of neutral exploration of a child’s symptoms, the changing capacity for abstract concepts with maturity, and the time-frame of identity development which extends into adulthood.​

This is indicative of the hellscape that Australia has become on this issue.
 
Last edited:
I recently found out that my daughter, when she was a toddler, had wanted short hair because she thought that would mean she wouldn't have to wash it. But at the time she didn't explain her reasoning. I could easily see an ideologically inclined parent thinking a preference like that was somehow an indication of gender identity, but they have no clue at that age what any of that means.
 
d4m10n said:
Unless they want to serve in uniform in the United States in which case they will be shown the door no matter how many years they've already put in. 🪖
Click to expand...
No one has a right to be employed by the armed forces. The courts have been consistent on this for years. Regardless of whether this is good or bad policy, removing them from the armed forces does not constitute any infringement of any rights at all.
 
I was in service during the GW Bush don't ask, don't tell era.
It was not a deviant behaviour tolerance place at all. In fact today's maga crowd would seem to be the average among them.

If you were known to be somehow off kilter of that norm it was a lot harder to advance a career despite being the most qualified or whatever.
They used the chain of command to prevent anyone they didn't like to move into preferred station assignments or should a better position open. You asked one level up, and trusted they were backing you. If not it was highly unlikely one could get an answer as to whom blocked your chance. The guy you could ask wouldn't know, even if he did.

It was just gay, not even openly gay that could end your career then. Now transand furries would be willing to test the limits of military regulations.
It's a fighting force designed to protect a nation, via combat troops, equipment and supply to meet that end.

It isn't a platform for DEI, social experiments and other weird bs ideas. If a person can't fit into making it just a protective force of a nation then move on.
The only reason DA/DT was put in place then is it was impossible to get military brass to bend any more at being inclusive. That didn't mean it got enforced in the least either. We were certainly under no obligation to even be nice from ranks above.

If IBM or any other commercial interest sees benefit in inclusive policies the more power to them. But somebody knows well armed rednecks that follow orders make a better military.
 
smartcooky said:
I couldn't be a military pilot because of my eyesight...
Click to expand...
You said trans folks have the "same protections regarding employment" as other people but now you are justifying firing them based on transgender status in one specific employment situation, which happens to be the only one currently under debate in the U.S.

Do you see any inconsistency here?
 
Ziggurat said:
Regardless of whether this is good or bad policy, removing them from the armed forces does not constitute any infringement of any rights at all.
Click to expand...
Rights are socially/politically/judicially constructed, rather than existing as true or false moral statements in the aether.

I am happy to agree with you that Americans do not currently extend employment rights to transgender people serving in uniform.

I am also happy to disagree with anyone who claims they enjoy the "same protections regarding employment" as cisgender people.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
You said trans folks have the "same protections regarding employment" as other people but now you are justifying firing them based on transgender status in one specific employment situation, which happens to be the only one currently under debate in the U.S.

Do you see any inconsistency here?
Click to expand...
Nope, no inconsistency at all.
First of all, military service is not employment, at least, not in the same sense as civilian employment. It's a calling, a service that requires commitment and self sacrifice. The military don't have promotion on seniority, they have it on merit and suitability for the task. You won't get employed or promoted if the chain of command don't think you're up to the task. You won't get a leadership position if the chain of command don't believe that you have the necessary skills, and even if you do have those skills, they still won't promote you if they don't think the men and women under your command will respect you.

Accommodating transgender people would be a liability in the military, especially in forward deployments.
 
d4m10n said:
Rights are socially/politically/judicially constructed, rather than existing as true or false moral statements in the aether.
Click to expand...
And you seem to be confused about how those rights have been legislatively and judicially constructed.
d4m10n said:
I am happy to agree with you that Americans do not currently extend employment rights to transgender people serving in uniform.
Click to expand...
You are either misunderstanding me or deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

NO ONE has ANY employment rights in the armed forces.
d4m10n said:
I am also happy to disagree with anyone who claims they enjoy the "same protections regarding employment" as cisgender people.
Click to expand...
Again, not true. Cisgender people DO NOT have ANY protections for armed forces employment. They are allowed to join the armed forces, but there's no protection for it.

You can complain all you want to that this is bad policy, but you cannot justifiably claim that this is any sort of abrogation or lessening of rights. It is not.
 
catsmate said:
It's fascinating how people have been brainwashed into considering that trans rights are a threat to women, and how are easily they can be manipulated with this issue.
Thankfully I'm not in UKia.
Click to expand...
I'm British. I do not consider that trans rights are a threat to women, and I'm not aware of having been manipulated with this issue.
Perhaps you could clarify this a little? I assume you don't mean all British people, so, in your estimation, what proportion of us have been "brainwashed"? How do you explain those of us who seem to have escaped this process?
What kind of threat do you consider that I, and others like me, believe trans people represent to women? Which specific right are you claiming for trans people that I apparently believe threatens women?
 
Ziggurat said:
NO ONE has ANY employment rights in the armed forces.
Click to expand...
... and just to clarify for @d4m10n, this doesn't mean the military personnel don't have rights at all.

In the US military, they have rights under the UCMJ; in New Zealand its AFDA, in Australia its DFDA - other armed forces will have their own version of this, but they're all similar in regards to civil rights - servicemen in effect have none.

In a civilian job, if you disobey your immediate superior or tell him/her to ◊◊◊◊-off, the absolute worst that can happen to you is you get fired. If you do that in the military, you will end up in the slammer (mind your fingers..... *CLANG*) and depending on the circumstances, that could be for a long time.. even years.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I'm British. I do not consider that trans rights are a threat to women, and I'm not aware of having been manipulated with this issue.
Perhaps you could clarify this a little? I assume you don't mean all British people, so, in your estimation, what proportion of us have been "brainwashed"? How do you explain those of us who seem to have escaped this process?
What kind of threat do you consider that I, and others like me, believe trans people represent to women? Which specific right are you claiming for trans people that I apparently believe threatens women?
Click to expand...
Oh, there has been a lot of brainwashing going on in the UK over the last 10 to 15 years, just not the kind of brainwashing @catsmate thinks has been happening.

Chief perpetrators nave been organizations such as Stonewall and Mermaids, who have outright lied about the law to their clients. Trans people think the recent UKSC ruling has taken away some of their rights - specifically, the right to use safe spaces reserved for the sex they are not... but that isn't true. What IS true is that they never had those rights in the first place. UKSC works the same way as SCOTUS in that regard - their ruling clarifies what the law actually is, and has always been. Supreme Courts don't make or change laws - only legislatures can do that!
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
What kind of threat do you consider that I, and others like me, believe trans people represent to women? Which specific right are you claiming for trans people that I apparently believe threatens women?
Click to expand...
The UK Supreme Court case was actually about how women only appointments, to get balanced advisory boards, as a starter.
 
It was about the definition of "woman" in the 2010 Equalities Act in general, although the Representation on Public Boards thing was the wedge issue. It made it abundantly clear that as soon as you allow a man, any man, into a space or a category set aside for women, that space or category is no longer single sex. Women have lost their right to have that single-sex space or category.

We've had a bunch of men in this thread over the years arguing that women shouldn't have any right to single-sex spaces or categories and no doubt we'll be hearing that again. And again. But the fact is that women  did have these rights, and currently  do have these rights, and men insisting on being included removes these rights.
 
Rolfe said:
It was about the definition of "woman" in the 2010 Equalities Act in general, although the Representation on Public Boards thing was the wedge issue. It made it abundantly clear that as soon as you allow a man, any man, into a space or a category set aside for women, that space or category is no longer single sex. Women have lost their right to have that single-sex space or category.

We've had a bunch of men in this thread over the years arguing that women shouldn't have any right to single-sex spaces or categories and no doubt we'll be hearing that again. And again. But the fact is that women  did have these rights, and currently  do have these rights, and men insisting on being included removes these rights.
Click to expand...

Including two or three very recently!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom