Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

This is precisely what I am trying to avoid!

Is it really necessary to have spelling conventions enshrined in law? Doesn't this reveal the untenable foundation of transgenderism, also having to make using the 'wrong' pronouns illegal. I'm somewhat libertarian in what adults should be free to do, but a red warning light goes on with the background control-freakery on this issue.

That happens more often than you might think!

Self identifying according to what you subjectively feel or perceive in your head does not change the objective reality around you.

I don't think it is the Christians themselves you ought to be scared of.

I would hope no-one here would not be sorry to hear you have had to suffer violence like this.

Maybe, just maybe, smashing the patriarchy was not such as good idea if it enabled men to escape a sense of responsibility towards women who are the weaker sex. I think egalitarianism has something to answer for in this regard. Treating as equal what isn't equal. Men treating women as though they were men - fine in some circumstances but not in others.

It's not a spelling error or a typo in your case, given its persistence.

It's like the difference between knowing your sh(1)t, and knowing you're sh(1)t.

 

[monkers]

@Unkraut

Thank you for that sentiment. I abhor violence. Let us both hope that no such attack happens on anyone again ever.

On your second point. Equality is so often pretended, something that looks like close parity is substituted for real equality. The Church of England is typical of this behaviour.

Sandy T says it well.


View: https://youtu.be/s1jfZ3lLxgc

 

[multitool]

I know we are going round and round but AS's problem is that everything zhe says is from an ideological perspective, not one rooted either in law or practice, and certainly not morality.

You can take any women's space you want and see it. Refuges are a really good example because AS thinks her ideological position trumps the expertise of the staff who run them. Ditto prisons. She defines TW as men and then says "we exclude all of them". Except, sorry, we don't. The women who run these places don't. The law doesn't. So she can try to conflate her personal opinion with reality as much as she wants, but reality wont conform to her ideology.

She can't even give coherent examples of how TW in women's spaces are a problem other than by definition, and that definition involves a conflation of RW with predatory men.

This is the problem with anti-trans campaigners. All their accusations are weird and non-tangible, like women being "erased" by trans women, because they rely on defining a problem into existence.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There's nothing more ideological and reality defying than thinking saying you're a woman makes you one. It's flat earth stuff.

The Scottish women prison officers and women prisoners weren't consulted on the jails policy. Scottish refuge staff rely on government funding which requires them to include transwomen. Those who speak out on these issues often find themselves hounded out of a job. And the women who don't agree will just self exclude from the services. Your endless assertion that women support all this stuff is baseless. And even if some do, they can't consent for those that don't.

She can't even give coherent examples of how TW in women's spaces are a problem other than by definition, and that definition involves a conflation of RW with predatory men.

The fact that you honestly can't see how having to sit in a counselling group with a male bodied person and talk about your rape wouldn't be upsetting just shows how little you care. Being able to specify a same sex carer for intimate care if you are old or disabled is very important to some people. This is 'weird and intangible' to you.

I provide you with specific examples of how self-ID will impact women and you constantly dismiss these as insignificant. Your empathy only extends in one direction, and it's not towards women.

 

[multitool]

No, it's ideology not reality, because...and I know you don't understand this...self ID is already largely de facto in existence.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Your gender identity is a subjective feeling. Your biological sex is material reality. The idea that the first should override the second is an ideological stance.

 

[Unkraut]

Sandy T says it well.

Fascinating.

She doesn't seem to understand that the C of E at least in theory is supposed to speak for God, not current British society. In that regard God has already spoken and spoken clearly according to the C of E's defining documents that being gay is indeed sinful.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (OT)

... and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (NT)

There is no liberty to change this any more than for say adultery or incest and be consistent. You either accept it or reject it. The rest of the Anglican world in the global south is no longer willing to put up with the compromise of the C of E and its Western 'colonial' attitude. Ironic.

 

[theclaud]

You either accept it or reject it.

It's a hard reject here, but thanks.

 

[monkers]

Fascinating.

She doesn't seem to understand that the C of E at least in theory is supposed to speak for God, not current British society. In that regard God has already spoken and spoken clearly according to the C of E's defining documents that being gay is indeed sinful.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (OT)

... and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (NT)

There is no liberty to change this any more than for say adultery or incest and be consistent. You either accept it or reject it. The rest of the Anglican world in the global south is no longer willing to put up with the compromise of the C of E and its Western 'colonial' attitude. Ironic.

Apologies Unkraut. I've messed up. I've attached the wrong clip. In fact I'm doubting myself now that it was S.T. I have a migraine right now (I'm a long-time sufferer) I'll try to correct things later.

 

[qigong chimp]

She doesn't seem to understand that the C of E at least in theory is supposed to speak for God, not current British society. In that regard God has already spoken and spoken clearly according to the C of E's defining documents that being gay is indeed sinful.

Then why isn't it the MofG, "Mouthpiece of God", instead of CofE; Church of England? A Church isn't a PA system with God at the mic.

If the CofE's "defining documents" are the clear voice of God, then the CofE re-defining those documents would be God re-speaking and re-speaking clearly, clearly.

What a dismal horror show. I mean, really.

Makes you long for AI to hasten its relentless rise, the quicker to snuff us out like so many dim cockroaches.

 

[monkers]

@Unkraut

It was supposed to be this one.


View: https://youtu.be/tgFxPwN7lXw

 

[multitool]

Then why isn't it the MofG, "Mouthpiece of God", instead of CofE; Church of England? A Church isn't a PA system with God at the mic.

If the CofE's "defining documents" are the clear voice of God, then the CofE re-defining those documents would be God re-speaking and re-speaking clearly, clearly.

What a dismal horror show. I mean, really.

Makes you long for AI to hasten its relentless rise, the quicker to snuff us out like so many dim cockroaches.

...and that was the Reverend Leo Allatius*, Vicar of Morpeth Baptist Church, joining us on Thought for the Day.



*worth checking out this C17th theologian for his theory on the origin of Saturn's Rings

 

[Ian H]

Fascinating.

She doesn't seem to understand that the C of E at least in theory is supposed to speak for God, not current British society. In that regard God has already spoken and spoken clearly according to the C of E's defining documents that being gay is indeed sinful.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (OT)

Interestingly there seems to be doubt over the meaning of the original Hebrew, with some scholars suggesting it's about incest rather than homosexuality.

 

[multitool]

There's nothing more ideological and reality defying than thinking saying you're a woman makes you one. It's flat earth stuff.

The Scottish women prison officers and women prisoners weren't consulted on the jails policy. Scottish refuge staff rely on government funding which requires them to include transwomen. Those who speak out on these issues often find themselves hounded out of a job. And the women who don't agree will just self exclude from the services. Your endless assertion that women support all this stuff is baseless. And even if some do, they can't consent for those that don't.



The fact that you honestly can't see how having to sit in a counselling group with a male bodied person and talk about your rape wouldn't be upsetting just shows how little you care. Being able to specify a same sex carer for intimate care if you are old or disabled is very important to some people. This is 'weird and intangible' to you.

I provide you with specific examples of how self-ID will impact women and you constantly dismiss these as insignificant. Your empathy only extends in one direction, and it's not towards women.

I see you are creating a nice little conspiracy theory for yourself here. That poor women who run shelters are only allowing trans women in, and publically advocating for them because they are fearful of having funding withdrawn by a Scottish government who are themselves under the control of a cabal of trans people.

Which is weird, you know, because there are so few of them. Trans women are, what 0.3% of the population? But then, even though there are so few, they are incredibly powerful, holding positions of such influence that they can effectively control, you know...a government.

Seems likely.

Which is weird, you know, because I never get to see the really powerful ones. Maybe there are some billionaire authors amongst them, or high court judges, or CEOs, or Generals. Because the only ones I ever see look like people with shattered lives only just about surviving, wondering what awaits them if they step out of the front door. But, you know, they must be powerful if they can control a government.

And yes, it would be off-putting if you were in hospital and all the nurses were trans women who work by day, and by night go to rape counselling groups to make real women feel uncomfortable. And in between this, of course, they've got a bit of perving to do in toilets. After all, they've got a reputation to keep up.

Very busy, these trans women.

 

[Xipe Totec]

Apropos of nothing, I have found myself idly wondering if the Great Culture War has progressed to the point where trans women have now replaced cyclists as the soceital subgroup that are As Bad If Not Worse Than Paedophiles.