mickle
Regular
Is Dow trans??
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Is Dow trans??
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Not as far as I know.
I like to bring some some positivity about women to the thread?
Celebrate their achievements in the face of the overwhelming cruelty and despair surrounding all that is robbed from them by the sinister trans cabal.
dutchguylivingintheuk
Veteran
That's a bit the same as Trump calling the Epstein files ''very boring not worth releasing'' after it turned out he was in it.
i think the word is ''deflection''
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
Create a new thread about women and their achievements.
This thread is predominantly about males pretending to be women, else its just a bit of distraction/deflection
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
I can't take AndyRM's posts about women's achievements seriously. They're just empty words because Andy would allow men to compete against the same sportswomen if they say they're women or if they are a male with a dsd. It's easy to virtue signal but as his sarcastic jokey dismissal of sportswomen losing out to men shows, when it comes down to what matters Andy isn't really that bothered.
As Jammie Booker was given the winning trophy, rightful winner Andrea Thompson said 'This is bullshit. Can we go?' and stepped off the podium. Hundreds of female athletes have felt the same way for the last 20 years. I am sick and tired of men disingenuously cheering it on.
View: https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1993126385976852617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993126385976852617%7Ctwgr%5E0ccd2c50e4857acc3728e41813ee1c0a56ded78d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fsports%2Ffemale-competitor-crowned-worlds-strongest-woman-after-transgender-controversy-overshadows-event
As Jammie Booker was given the winning trophy, rightful winner Andrea Thompson said 'This is bullshit. Can we go?' and stepped off the podium. Hundreds of female athletes have felt the same way for the last 20 years. I am sick and tired of men disingenuously cheering it on.
View: https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1993126385976852617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993126385976852617%7Ctwgr%5E0ccd2c50e4857acc3728e41813ee1c0a56ded78d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fsports%2Ffemale-competitor-crowned-worlds-strongest-woman-after-transgender-controversy-overshadows-event
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
Before the Police were captured
View: https://x.com/realRick_AUS/status/1993887445134569706?t=Lu2Ak1ZpueSt0O0oG9xdHg&s=19
View: https://x.com/realRick_AUS/status/1993887445134569706?t=Lu2Ak1ZpueSt0O0oG9xdHg&s=19
AndyRM
Elder Goth
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Done.
So we can keep this thread for having a dig a lot folk for their opinions on trans people eh?
Ianonabike
Esquire
Going back to Helen Joyce's interview with Webberley, this is from Joyce's substack:
I had wondered whether Webberley could possibly believe the nonsense she talks — whether, in other words, she is deluded, stupid or saying things she knows not to be true. What I have concluded after the event (an hour of my life I won’t get back) is that none of these properly describe her. What she is is a bullshitter, in the sense proposed by American philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his book “On Bullshit”, published in 2005.
What distinguishes liars from bullshitters, Frankfurt said, was that liars knowingly seek to convince others of a falsehood, whereas bullshitters don’t care and may not even know whether what they say is true or false. The bullshitter’s speech is more profoundly instrumental — and cynical — than the speech of the liar, who seeks to convince you of the truth of a falsehood. It isn’t even intended to have any relationship with the truth, either positive or negative. Facts are neither here nor there.
All this seems to me to describe Webberley’s modus operandi very well. Her claimed belief system is incoherent — she claims to think that sex isn’t binary and can’t be properly defined, but also that “trans women” are literally women, and female, and that “women can have penises and men can have uteruses”, and that when a child claims to be the sex they weren’t “assigned at birth” the appropriate response is to block the “wrong” puberty and give drugs that simulate the “other” puberty — but what is wrong about the “wrong” puberty if sex isn’t definable, and what can “the other” puberty mean if sex isn’t binary, and anyway, if women, men and non-binary people can all have whatever type of body, why intervene to change the bodies? Why not just give the kids pronoun badges and send them away?
She also has no concern whatsoever for the accuracy of what she says, instead seeming to say whatever suits in the moment. She insisted that the UK Equality Act grants trans people the right to use facilities of the opposite sex, which it never did. She suggested that the Supreme Court judgment was legally wrong — so ridiculous; the Supreme Court’s interpretations are the law, unless and until it’s changed. She makes appeals to authority (she said several times that I had no standing to talk about child gender medicine because I’m not a doctor) at the same time as confidently straying beyond her own purported field of expertise (if I can’t talk about medicine, why can she talk about equality law?) And so on and on and on.
I think this is because, for reasons unconnected with facts or evidence, she has decided that she will do everything she can to enable children of any age to socially transition and get hormonal interventions, if that is what they say they want. I won’t speculate about why she has decided this — I really don’t know. But she starts from that point and then does and says whatever seems most likely, in the moment, to advance that goal. She doesn’t reason forward from facts or even premises — she doesn’t even reason backward from observed outcomes. She doesn’t reason at all, and it’s a mistake to engage with her as if she does.
Earlier this year, when various commentators were talking utter bullshit in response to Trump’s executive order defining sex, I wrote a column about the concept for the Critic. As I said then, talking to bullshitters is exhausting and demoralising. They throw out large and varied amounts of nonsense at high speed, leaving you to either let lies fly past or spend time debunking them — and there are so many, and anyway once one lie is called out they just move on to another without even acknowledging that they got something wrong — indeed they may merrily repeat the same falsehood later, if it suits them in the moment.
The bullshitter simply isn’t engaging in good faith. They aren’t actually trying to defeat your arguments, but to muddy the waters so much that anyone listening concludes that it’s all too complicated, and specifically that it’s not worth trying to work out who is right and who is wrong, still less to actually do anything as a result of what they have learned.
I had wondered whether Webberley could possibly believe the nonsense she talks — whether, in other words, she is deluded, stupid or saying things she knows not to be true. What I have concluded after the event (an hour of my life I won’t get back) is that none of these properly describe her. What she is is a bullshitter, in the sense proposed by American philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his book “On Bullshit”, published in 2005.
What distinguishes liars from bullshitters, Frankfurt said, was that liars knowingly seek to convince others of a falsehood, whereas bullshitters don’t care and may not even know whether what they say is true or false. The bullshitter’s speech is more profoundly instrumental — and cynical — than the speech of the liar, who seeks to convince you of the truth of a falsehood. It isn’t even intended to have any relationship with the truth, either positive or negative. Facts are neither here nor there.
All this seems to me to describe Webberley’s modus operandi very well. Her claimed belief system is incoherent — she claims to think that sex isn’t binary and can’t be properly defined, but also that “trans women” are literally women, and female, and that “women can have penises and men can have uteruses”, and that when a child claims to be the sex they weren’t “assigned at birth” the appropriate response is to block the “wrong” puberty and give drugs that simulate the “other” puberty — but what is wrong about the “wrong” puberty if sex isn’t definable, and what can “the other” puberty mean if sex isn’t binary, and anyway, if women, men and non-binary people can all have whatever type of body, why intervene to change the bodies? Why not just give the kids pronoun badges and send them away?
She also has no concern whatsoever for the accuracy of what she says, instead seeming to say whatever suits in the moment. She insisted that the UK Equality Act grants trans people the right to use facilities of the opposite sex, which it never did. She suggested that the Supreme Court judgment was legally wrong — so ridiculous; the Supreme Court’s interpretations are the law, unless and until it’s changed. She makes appeals to authority (she said several times that I had no standing to talk about child gender medicine because I’m not a doctor) at the same time as confidently straying beyond her own purported field of expertise (if I can’t talk about medicine, why can she talk about equality law?) And so on and on and on.
I think this is because, for reasons unconnected with facts or evidence, she has decided that she will do everything she can to enable children of any age to socially transition and get hormonal interventions, if that is what they say they want. I won’t speculate about why she has decided this — I really don’t know. But she starts from that point and then does and says whatever seems most likely, in the moment, to advance that goal. She doesn’t reason forward from facts or even premises — she doesn’t even reason backward from observed outcomes. She doesn’t reason at all, and it’s a mistake to engage with her as if she does.
Earlier this year, when various commentators were talking utter bullshit in response to Trump’s executive order defining sex, I wrote a column about the concept for the Critic. As I said then, talking to bullshitters is exhausting and demoralising. They throw out large and varied amounts of nonsense at high speed, leaving you to either let lies fly past or spend time debunking them — and there are so many, and anyway once one lie is called out they just move on to another without even acknowledging that they got something wrong — indeed they may merrily repeat the same falsehood later, if it suits them in the moment.
The bullshitter simply isn’t engaging in good faith. They aren’t actually trying to defeat your arguments, but to muddy the waters so much that anyone listening concludes that it’s all too complicated, and specifically that it’s not worth trying to work out who is right and who is wrong, still less to actually do anything as a result of what they have learned.
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
Gosh it was a trendy fad. It did even last as long as punk rock in the 70s
View: https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1994171878743712036?t=mQi1o-Ga7MI7UZIZ04dm7w&s=19
View: https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1994171878743712036?t=mQi1o-Ga7MI7UZIZ04dm7w&s=19
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Whoever wrote the first comment under that video is bang on.
But f*ck it, I guess I'd better haul my non binary ass off to "normality".
It's more in line with androgyny than anything else really (IMO), so if you've ever enjoyed a Queen, David Bowie, Eurythmics, Human League or Marilyn Manson song (tried to cover a lot of bases here), you're probably doomed by woke ideology.
But f*ck it, I guess I'd better haul my non binary ass off to "normality".
It's more in line with androgyny than anything else really (IMO), so if you've ever enjoyed a Queen, David Bowie, Eurythmics, Human League or Marilyn Manson song (tried to cover a lot of bases here), you're probably doomed by woke ideology.
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
If you stick with it, you might one day end up as a collectors item at the local car boot sale
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Dare to dream eh?
If I end up on Dickinson's Real Deal I'll know I've completed life. Although I'd settle for Bargain Hunt, or maybe Cash in the Attic.
Perhaps I'll be discovered in some hideously bodged place on Homes Under the Hammer!
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
This is so true. From pretending that sex is so nuanced that there can't be only 2 sexes to saying you can't define what a woman is, from pretending that there's no difference between male and female bodies in sports to pretending that male pattern violence isn't a thing - it's all intended to undermine what we all know to be true and to sow confusion. All in the service of allowing a certain subset of men to get what they want.
mickle
Regular
I didn't realise you were a nonbinarian.
