Gender again. Sorry!

[winjim]

Ahem...that's two people you've told to fück off in this thread in the space of a couple of hours.

Was a haven of peace before you sullied it with your language

View attachment 3459

The first one was a joke, playing off and acknowledging accusations of my own sometimes intemperate behaviour.

The second one TBH is exasperation since I've repeatedly gone out of my way to emphasise the fact that I'm open to genuine discussion on this subject and I find it interesting.


It was always a binfire of a thread, even before you came along and started screaming 'fascist!' at people.

@icowden I appreciate that you were coming in to give honest clarification about the points you were making earlier but I'm afraid I'm out of spoons.

 

[classic33]

And why has the system done that? Magic? Or because BK claims that he is a woman?

He wasn't the person who applied to the courts for the gender recognition certificate. It was done for him.

He could claim all he wanted, but until he was old enough, 18, to apply himself then he'd have been male.

 

[multitool]

It was always a binfire of a thread, even before you came along and started screaming 'fascist!' at people.

Voices in the head again.

 

[Rusty Nails]

It was always a binfire of a thread, even before you came along and started screaming 'fascist!' at people.

Through following this thread I have at least learned one thing. That some people refer to them as "Fash". Sounds almost warm and cuddly

 

[icowden]

And how exactly are you going to identity trans men or trans women in order to do your risk assessment?

You don't need to. But you need to have appropriate legislation in place so that action can be taken if needed.

As for men only being the risk of raping a female, remember Vicki Bevan, #1,887?

She was charged with joint rape and as is usual in these sorts of cases, was the accomplice to a man. All evidence and stats bear witness to the fact that rape is pretty much uniquely a male crime. Women commit murder and violence but the incidence of sexual cases is *very* small compared to men.

 

[monkers]

Kathleen Stock isn't exactly hyper feminised in appearance. You just can't stand women organising and advocating just for themselves. You've got Stonewall, let lesbians have their own stuff.

I'd already told you weeks ago that my biggest objection is this screeching alarmism from women organising against women on an ideology they have about trans people pinned in the centre and faced with having to defend themselves from at least three sides. Between you a great destructive disservice to women is being done. It's disgraceful. I and other lesbian women are sick to the back teeth of it as attempts are being made to recruit us to sides.

 

[classic33]

You don't need to. But you need to have appropriate legislation in place so that action can be taken if needed.

She was charged with joint rape and as is usual in these sorts of cases, was the accomplice to a man. All evidence and stats bear witness to the fact that rape is pretty much uniquely a male crime. Women commit murder and violence but the incidence of sexual cases is *very* small compared to men.

If you say there's no need to identity those you want to exclude/keep out, how are you going to do it without identifying them?

Vicki Bevan was the ringleader, not an accomplice in those events. Reflected in the sentences handed out.

 

[newfhouse]

The statement that biological sex is real, but gender identity is just in people's heads, is yet another piece of nonsense because people can and do function without genitals, but not without a brain. Yet the cry is, trans people think that gender trumps sex - well yes the biological reality is that it does.

I find this argument compelling. ”Feelings in your head” are a result of biological processes; they don’t have a separate existence.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I find this argument compelling. ”Feelings in your head” are a result of biological processes; they don’t have a separate existence.

So "voices in your head" are not the insult some people use them as?

 

[icowden]

If you say there's no need to identity those you want to exclude/keep out, how are you going to do it without identifying them?

You don't. But you make sure that protections are in place so that when a complaint is made it is dealt with, rather than treated as an infringement of the perpetrator's rights.

Vicki Bevan was the ringleader, not an accomplice in those events. Reflected in the sentences handed out.

I sit corrected. Yes, she is one of those very rare exceptions I mentioned.

 

[icowden]

I'd already told you weeks ago that my biggest objection is this screeching alarmism from women organising against women on an ideology they have about trans people pinned in the centre and faced with having to defend themselves from at least three sides.

I wonder where that has come from? It's almost as if some women have found themselves routinely silenced and "cancelled" when they dare to have an opinion which differs from that of transwomen. It's like they have found themselves no-platformed and cancelled, and been barracked by groups threatening to decapitate them.

Isn't it odd?

 

[newfhouse]

So "voices in your head" are not the insult some people use them as?

What are they saying?

 

[classic33]

You don't. But you make sure that protections are in place so that when a complaint is made it is dealt with, rather than treated as an infringement of the perpetrator's rights.

I sit corrected. Yes, she is one of those very rare exceptions I mentioned.

So just how do decide if the person is a women, trans women or trans man?
The latter, using the logic provided so far, can't possibly exist. Therefore making the women's single sex space(s) the place they should be using.

So when a female teacher decides on giving extra, one to one lessons, in her bedroom that's okay.
#1,143

Does the minority extend to the women involved in "acquiring children for others"?
Keighley, Bradford, Rotherham and Rochdale. It's what they've been charged with, in some cases convicted of in a court.

 

[theclaud]

Then I think I see where the issue is. There are two different discussions going on.

About five last time I counted.

 

[theclaud]

That does seem kind of vague to me. Any chance you could be more specific? If there was a person in front of you and you had to assign them a category of 'man' or 'woman', how would you go about it?

Remember I'm trying to find an 'easy' system of categorising all individuals with no exceptions. (I guess we could allow some exceptions if we put them in the 'not woman' pile since the original question was, as it always seems to be, 'what is a woman' but let's set that aside.)

What have we here? A man or a fish? Dead or alive? A fish. He smells like a fish, a very ancient and fish-like smell, a kind of not-of-the-newest poor-john. A strange fish! Were I in England now, as once I was, and had but this fish painted, not a holiday fool there but would give a piece of silver. There would this monster make a man. Any strange beast there makes a man.