Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Ziggurat said:
Yes. Lots of people. It was considered healthier, as it would prevent a lighter sleeper from disturbing the sleep quality of the heavier sleeper.
www.theguardian.com

Rolled over: why did married couples stop sleeping in twin beds?

A new cultural history shows that until the 1950s, forward-thinking couples regarded sharing a bed as old-fashioned and unhealthy
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

They're also extremely practical for guest bedrooms. You can put up a couple, or two people of the same sex who are prepared to share a room.
 
Ron Obvious said:
Did anybody actually live like that? I thought that those twin beds you're referring to were mostly a thing for TV, when prudery dictated they couldn't show a double bed. A taboo probably broken by All in the Family, like several others, was my guess.
Click to expand...
Both sets of my grandparents had dual twins separated by about a foot for most of my childhood. My maternal grandparents swapped that out for a queen when I was in my teens.
 
That works well if you don't have so much space and/or you need the room for another purpose as well.
 
Rolfe said:
I thought they had already announced it as definite.
Click to expand...
It is the intention of the new head of the IoC; this is the implementation. First getting agreement that the advantages of male puberty cannot be offset, then dealing with the other issues like DSDs.
 
By now, tediously predictable. (The source for the statistics is in the reply tweet.)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1987899716625981493

And as someone pointed out, the female offenders nearly all carried out their crimes with a male partner. Would Hindley have done what she did without Brady? Would Rose have done what she did without Fred?
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Not to get this going again, but the mistake was not the problem. What was interesting was the acceptance of such a conclusion, which was ludicrous on its face. It shouldn't have passed the sniff test, yet that narrative is so deeply drilled into some heads here that they couldn't recognize how absurd it was.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this in the light of something daft that happened on Saturday, the day after Thermal posted. I had volunteered to print out some music for choir practice on Sunday. I asked the choirmaster if I should get some 100 g/m2 paper, as I had noticed that the 80 g/m2 paper I have seemed flimsy for the purpose on a previous occasion. He emailed back to say he had plenty of the heavier weight, so I went to his house to collect it.

As his wife was giving me tea he said, three sheets each? I said no, four. Does it have to be four, said he, because it's only six pages of music? I said yes, because of a page turn, also because the translation of the text was printed (separately) on the back page, making it actually seven pages in all. He conceded the point. I should point out that he asked for 30 copies, our choir isn't large, and he regularly prints out works with more pages than this one. (I think the Mozart Te Deum runs to nearly 30 pages per copy!) I was thinking this was a strange objection, given the amount of music he regularly prints out with the same or more pages, but I was drinking tea and chatting to his wife and not really calculating it.

I had hoped to get a whole packet of the stuff, so that I had some to hand if extra copies of anything were needed, and hoped that he wouldn't parsimoniously count out the number and just give me enough to do the job. When he handed me two packets of the stuff, saying "I think that should be enough", I was certainly startled, but wasn't motivated to question it. I mean, he prints stuff out for the choir all the time, and he knows how thick the bundle of paper he carries to the hall is. An 8-page, 4-sheet Christmas carol is a bagatelle. Not two full packets of paper!

I went home and started printing. 30 copies, four sheets each, that's 120 sheets. Subjectively, I'd barely used a quarter of the first packet. I looked to see how many sheets were in the packet, but weirdly, it didn't say. Only a large 100 g/m2 on the front. I began to see what had happened. I checked my own packets of 80 g/m2, which were subjectively about 20% thinner, and these said 500 sheets. Figures. These were 500-sheet packets. Sir had just looked at the front, seen the number 100, and done his sums on the basis that this was the number of sheets in the packet.

My point is that handing me two packets of paper was a ludicrous thing to do which shouldn't have passed any sniff test at all, least of all that performed by someone who himself prints out this sort of thing all the time. But he did it. (He's a retired professor of physics, I don't know if that makes it better or worse.) And I went along with it - although I had my reasons for not delving too deeply - without actually getting as far as thinking, he's giving me eight times as much paper as I need.

When I emailed him to ask if I should return the surplus paper (and he replied just keep it for later use, RESULT!) he confirmed that he'd just looked at the number 100 and calculated on the assumption that that was the number of sheets in the packet. Despite obviously knowing better from using the stuff for decades, and the fact that the entire reason for my visit was to get paper that was specifically 100 g/m2.

It happens. People don't always cycle things through their brains the way they should. And an apology with a laugh should be accepted.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
"Wear what you please..."
Click to expand...
I do think people should wear what they please. I want that man to dress like that, because then I know what I'm actually dealing with. It's aposematism in action. Although in this case, it doesn't signal a warning to potential predators, but to potential prey.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
I do think people should wear what they please. I want that man to dress like that, because then I know what I'm actually dealing with. It's aposematism in action. Although in this case, it doesn't signal a warning to potential predators, but to potential prey.
Click to expand...
It's a perversion of aposematism. As well as a perversion of womanhood, and a perversion of sexuality.
 

IOC to ban transgender women from all female Olympic events: report​

The change is set to be officially announced early next year, The Times reported on Monday, citing sources.

The decision to overhaul the current policy was made after the sporting committee carried out a science-based review of a biologically-born male’s physical advantages, the sources added.
Click to expand...

They needed a study to tell them that obvious things, true for over a million years, are still true?
But I get it --- they needed an 'out" after being trendily inclusive to the point of being unfair.
I'll take it as a positive step.
 
Coming from the past to confirm - because I was there - that there were no arrests at the planned 199 Days Later protest in London, however there were three arrests at the relatively unplanned counter protest by the TRAs. The Met Police did a fantastic job at corralling the TRA counter-protestors away from us. The counter-protestors were violent and shouted insults at us; we ignored them and continued to march without engaging with them at all.

We got a lot of support from both Londoners and tourists (and from lots of submariners who were in London on leave) especially on the issue of male sex offenders in women's prisons.

We had a peaceful protest on a planned and agreed route from Parliament Square to Horse Guards Parade, then speeches, then our group went to a pub.

Unfortunately despite the aid of the wonderful passenger assist services on East Midland Trains and two really lovely helpful cabbies (the wheelchair ramps are under the cab floors and they just pull them out, it's so clever), the day took more energy than I had anticipated so I was unwell for a few days afterwards, otherwise I would have corrected Thermal's error earlier.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom