TERFs crash London Pride

JoeMorgue said:
There might, might be a fair discussion to be had about whether or not the gender roles that transgender people to define how their internal gender identities are meaningfully distinct from traditional cisgender might come into conflict conceptually with the push in society to remove gender roles.

Without having the entire transgender discussion again... that's still where I'm at. I've always been 100% open and honest that without clear difference outside of either base biological difference or vague statistical bellcurving between the genders to fall back on the very base concept of transgenderism is hard for me to find a vein to hit with.

But that idea that any of that requires us to entertain even for a moment the idea that they are essentially a species of undercover perverts (and if Undercover Perverts has been a band name we have failed as a species and should be ashamed of ourselves) has to be entertained.
Click to expand...


I didn't notice where anyone was suggesting you entertain that idea.

Women, and lesbians in particular, are trying to have precisely the discussion you outlined in your first paragraph (without the insulting term "cisgender" being a part of it). The basis of the problem is that such discussion is not being permitted by the trans activist lobby. Literally "there is no debate". This is precisely what has led to the current situation, and the shameful treatment of the lesbian group who tried to march at Pride with a banner saying that lesbians are female homosexuals and the penis is not a female organ.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
Yet you accept that someone born in the body of one sex can be attracted to the same sex, even when the majority are not? Why accept that variation in the human condition, but vigorously deny another?

Thanks, but I'll take my personal experience of the people I actually know over denialist dogma.
Click to expand...


What "another"? That a man can turn into a woman? That a male brain, with XY chromosomes in every cell and which has been bathed in all the normal male hormones all its life, can somehow be categorised as female?
 
Rolfe said:
What "another"? That a man can turn into a woman? That a male brain, with XY chromosomes in every cell and which has been bathed in all the normal male hormones all its life, can somehow be categorised as female?
Click to expand...

Yet a male brain "with XY chromosomes in every cell and which has been bathed in all the normal male hormones all its life" can still end up gay. Or, for that matter, a female brain "with XX chromosomes in every cell and which has been bathed in all the normal female hormones all its life" can still end up lesbian.
 
Rolfe said:
I don't know what proportion it is. How could one possibly tell.
Click to expand...

How are you estimating risk without access to thees numbers? How do you know you're not wildly exaggerating the risk when you can't say how many of the set of trans men are dangerous to women?

It seems to be one out of the three trans-identifying men that I know, but that's no guide.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Not only that, it seems you have no guide at all - you literally cannot say how large the subgroup about which you are concerned is. You are therefore entirely unable to estimate risk with any confidence at all. You still loudly proclaim it to be an issue. I cannot reconcile your lack of statistical knowledge with your apparent absolute estimate of risk.


I don't know in what way you think inoffensive trans-identifying men are being "punished" by a group of lesbians trying to express their concerns about the threat to their identity as female homosexuals.
Click to expand...

'Punished' is perhaps the wrong word. "Being restricted from their normal, daily activities because you believe but cannot numerate a risk" would probably be better.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
Yet a male brain "with XY chromosomes in every cell and which has been bathed in all the normal male hormones all its life" can still end up gay. Or, for that matter, a female brain "with XX chromosomes in every cell and which has been bathed in all the normal female hormones all its life" can still end up lesbian.
Click to expand...


Of course. But in that case the person remains male or female, accordingly. Supernatural trans-substantiation is not being proposed.
 
Information Analyst said:
Yet a male brain "with XY chromosomes in every cell and which has been bathed in all the normal male hormones all its life" can still end up gay. Or, for that matter, a female brain "with XX chromosomes in every cell and which has been bathed in all the normal female hormones all its life" can still end up lesbian.
Click to expand...

Gay men are men. Lesbians are women.
 
Rolfe said:
Oh God, not this "denying people's existence" crap again.

It is absolutely relevant that the members of this particular aggressive, violent, bullying group are men who identify as trans. That's the basis of their behaviour. You can't separate that behaviour from the motivation for that behaviour.
Click to expand...

You've mentioned trans women a lot.

How do you feel about trans men?
 
3point14 said:
How are you estimating risk without access to thees numbers? How do you know you're not wildly exaggerating the risk when you can't say how many of the set of trans men are dangerous to women?

Indeed. Not only that, it seems you have no guide at all - you literally cannot say how large the subgroup about which you are concerned is. You are therefore entirely unable to estimate risk with any confidence at all. You still loudly proclaim it to be an issue. I cannot reconcile your lack of statistical knowledge with your apparent absolute estimate of risk.

'Punished' is perhaps the wrong word. "Being restricted from their normal, daily activities because you believe but cannot numerate a risk" would probably be better.
Click to expand...


Does it matter what proportion of trans-identifying men are violent and aggressive? There are enough of them to create a substantial problem and it doesn't magically go away just because you're happy that it's not a high percentage.

In what way are inoffensive trans-identifying people being restricted from their normal daily activities by a group of lesbians rocking up to Pride with banners that say things like "Lesbian = female homosexual" and "The penis is not a female organ"?
 
pharphis said:
You've mentioned trans women a lot.

How do you feel about trans men?
Click to expand...


Show me a trans-identifying woman who's being violent and aggressive towards men and I'll tell you.

ETA: I probably phrased that badly. There does not appear to be a cohort of trans-identifying women who are being violent and aggressive towards men, and calling gay men transphobic if they say they don't want to have sex with them. So this is a problem pretty much confined to the male of the species.
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
Are there any actual numbers or anlysis on that page? I can't see anything that would constitute anything more than anecdote.

It's just a whole page of argument by twitter. You can pretty much show anything by cherry picking twitter bolocks.
Click to expand...


And yet you and others are content to insist that because you know a few trans-identifying men who are inoffensive, nice people then that characterises the whole group and anyone who's different from that is the aberration.

It works both ways.
 
Rolfe said:
Show me a trans-identifying woman who's being violent and aggressive towards men and I'll tell you.
Click to expand...

Does that mean you will base your opinion of trans men solely on whether or not I can find an example of said behavior?

Does that mean you don't currently have an opinion? Aren't trans men also trying to "get into (male) protected spaces" like their counterparts the trans women?

This viewpoint doesn't seem consistent.

Also is it "female entitlement" to want access to male spaces?
 
There's almost 8 billion of us on this planet. Make up the most wildest demographic you can imagine and I can find a fair number of ******** in it.
 
Cleon said:
I don't get why Rolfe objects to being labeled "transphobic" when she thinks transwomen are out to "hurt, abuse and discriminate against women."

It's a bit like refusing to eat meat but getting offended at the label "vegetarian."
Click to expand...

Some trans folk are, so I'm going to take a page from your book "not all trans".

How does that feel? Do you think this debate is going to progress due to my statement?
 
pharphis said:
Does that mean you will base your opinion of trans men solely on whether or not I can find an example of said behavior?

Does that mean you don't currently have an opinion? Aren't trans men also trying to "get into (male) protected spaces" like their counterparts the trans women?

This viewpoint doesn't seem consistent.

Also is it "female entitlement" to want access to male spaces?
Click to expand...


Well, I'm not a man so the invasion of men's spaces is not my primary concern. However I see no reports of aggressive, bullying trans-identifying women intimidating men or threatening or perpetrating violence against men for the crime of not including them in men's groups or activities.

I don't see women on testosterone marching with blue baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire with labels such as "TERM-basher" on them. I don't see any sign of an equivalent problem on the other side of the sex divide. Perhaps I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, show me the evidence this is a thing and I'll reconsider.
 
Information Analyst said:
Fifty years ago people asked the same sort of thing about the existence of gays and lesbians. Ironically.
Click to expand...

People denied gay people were doing gay things? I think the issue was rather the opposite they knew they were going on and hatred it.

Stop trying to shoehorn in comparisons that don't fit.
 
JoeMorgue said:
There's almost 8 billion of us on this planet. Make up the most wildest demographic you can imagine and I can find a fair number of ******** in it.
Click to expand...


Undoubtedly. However the question arises as to whether the person's inclusion in that demographic is a fundamental reason for the ********* being highlighted. If it's not, then it's irrelevant. But if it is, then it has to be acknowledged.
 
Information Analyst said:
Yet you accept that someone born in the body of one sex can be attracted to the same sex, even when the majority are not? Why accept that variation in the human condition, but vigorously deny another?

Thanks, but I'll take my personal experience of the people I actually know over denialist dogma.
Click to expand...
You accept that someone can be transgender but deny that someone can have the soul of an animal. How is that different?

Personally I'd say they were two separate things, but you have backed yourself into a corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom