Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

I haven't seen the post where @AuroraSaab insulted, or targeted a member of your family.

My niece is not 'male bodied', not male, not a man, not a danger to others. She is not only non-aggressive but more a more gentle soul than I.

These are insulting, bigoted remarks and are intended to be insulting. I know because she has said repeatedly that she 'is not prepared to be kind'. In other words, she knows that her words are vicious and cruel.

My niece wishes to live her life in peace. As I have detailed way back, before you started stirring this particular pot, her home was subjected to forced entry, vandalism, and a thankfully failed arson attack. She was doxxed by an activist. She can not return there and feel safe.

When I mentioned this, not a word from Aurora. When Posie Parker had tomato juice poured over her by an intersex woman, we heard AS cracking on about male violence against women. PP's aggressor is not male-bodied, she's a woman.

In Scotland, activists preceived a police officer to be trans. That police officer received over 2 million hate messages. When the police attempted to press charges against one, the activists protested. Eventually the charges were dropped. Imagine what As would say if any cis woman was treated this way by a man, and charges were dropped because men protested.

One thing you can rely on, nearly everything AS says contains a lie. Why should anybody be required to respect that? Because she's a woman?

 

[mudsticks]

Well quite. Misogyny is treating all women as if their view is inherently inferior to that of a man. A misogynist will tend to treat all women in that way.

But when a woman is as wrong as Aurora, and she is not going to stop from repeating those lies, then it should be a matter for anyone to say so 'because she is a woman'.

I'm not acceding to the view that a man can not be critical of the views of a woman because it's misogyny - it isn't.

Nobody can say Aurora has not been heard, she has been heard, more than adequately. What she says is ignorant, wrong and is harmful. Anyone who believes her 'facts' are wrong ought be free to say so. Anyone who believes that her bigotry is harmful ought be free to say so.

Except nobody actually said that.

Of course misogynists don't treat all women's views as inferior..

Or rather they don't, so long as those views accord with their own views.

Challenge them however..
Then things tend to change rather rapidly.

 

[monkers]

Except nobody actually said that.

Of course misogynists don't treat all women's views as inferior..

Or rather they don't, so long as those views accord with their own views.

Challenge them however..
Then things tend to change rather rapidly.

Yes poor Aurora. She never brought any of this upon herself - it's just because men do this to women.

Aurora actually discredits women. The criticisms of her are justifiable.

 

[mudsticks]

My niece is not 'male bodied', not male, not a man, not a danger to others. She is not only non-aggressive but more a more gentle soul than I.

She wishes to live her life in peace. As I have detailed way back, before you started stirring this particular pot, her home was subjected to forced entry, vandalism, and a thankfully failed arson attack. She was doxxed by an activist. She can not return there and feel safe.

When I mentioned this, not a word from Aurora. When Posie Parker had tomato juice poured over her by an intersex woman, we heard AS cracking on about male violence against women. PP's aggressor is not male-bodied, she's a woman.

One thing you can rely on, nearly everything AS says contains a lie. Why should anybody be required to respect that? Because she's a woman?

I don't doubt that your niece is all the things you say.
I don't doubt either that any decent person would condemn any violence done or said against her.

That's a given.

But condemning as a bigoted, violence inciting liar, anyone who raises any intersectional conflict of interest, or concerns about how transgender issues are handled, doesn't make the world a safer and more peaceful and tolerant world for anyone.

I don't know what you infer by 'stirring the pot'.

Sounds like a rather negative euphemism for having some input into the discussion??

Anyway, I have 'squiring' to do elsewhere - farming seemingly being no respecter of bank holidays.

 

[mudsticks]

Yes poor Aurora. She never brought any of this upon herself - it's just because men do this to women.

Aurora actually discredits women. The criticisms of her are justifiable.

Nope @AuroraSaab does not 'discredit' women.
She is only one woman.

Her opinions are her own - she does not claim to represent or speak for the whole of womanhood, so there's no way she can 'discredit' women.

Criticism of her viewpoint may be justifiable.

But calling her 'idiot' or in one particularly telling phrase (of yours) 'you little fool' doesn't help.

Yes the way men use language against women (and anyone else 'other') whom they don't like is often very telling.
Our 'culture' is steeped in derogatory phrases, and attitudes, that diminish women and their experiences.

 

[monkers]

I don't doubt that your niece is all the things you say.
I don't doubt either that any decent person would condemn any violence done or said against her.

That's a given.

But condemning as a bigoted, violence inciting liar, anyone who raises any intersectional conflict of interest, or concerns about how transgender issues are handled, doesn't make the world a safer and more peaceful and tolerant world for anyone.

I don't know what you infer by 'stirring the pot'.

Sounds like a rather negative euphemism for having some input into the discussion??

Anyway, I have 'squiring' to do elsewhere - farming seemingly being no respecter of bank holidays.

Not a euphemism - I'm saying it as it is. You are taking sides based on sympathy for a woman for getting it in the neck. AS has been more than adequately heard. Repeatedly evidence is put before her that her 'facts' are wrong - but this changes nothing. Endless slurs against trans people parroted with a false, malicious and twisted narrative.

Hate crime rates against trans people are soaring. It doesn't matter to AS. She refuses to acknowledge that this campaign against trans women places them in harms way. She doesn't care.

It doesn't matter that the so-called evidence that she brings about the offending of trans people and the number of trans prisons is false, she refuses to acknowledge the truth. Not just this truth but any truth inconvenient to her failed argument. This position is not from a discussion or debate but from a fixed position - absolutism, rooted in bigotry.

 

[monkers]

Nope @AuroraSaab does not 'discredit' women.
She is only one woman.

Her opinions are her own - she does not claim to represent or speak for the whole of womanhood, so there's no way she can 'discredit' women.

Criticism of her viewpoint may be justifiable.

But calling her 'idiot' or in one particularly telling phrase (of yours) 'you little fool' doesn't help.

Yes the way men use language against women (and anyone else 'other') whom they don't like is often very telling.
Our 'culture' is steeped in derogatory phrases, and attitudes, that diminish women and their experiences.

She is an idiot, and a fool. These are not gender-based insults like 'silly cow' for example. Women can be idiots and fools as much as men - AS is both of these.

I'll say this about anybody who refuses to recognise the truth. The law is what it is. It doesn't follow that my own views are the same as the law, but I am sensible enough to recognise what the law actually says and not pretend it means the opposite. These are the actions of an idiot and a fool.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 says that a trans person has the acquired sex and gender for all purposes under the law. A High Court judge has interpreted the law as being so except in 'exceptional circumstances'. This case was in 2021. Only an idiot will then argue that because the Equality Act from eleven years earlier does not use the same form of words as the judge. Not only is that chronologically impossible, but it is not how the law functions.

The 2004 Act sets out the legal status and protections for trans people. The Equality Act 2010 does not apply exclusively to trans people, it applies to all people to say how nobody can not be discriminated against. Only an idiot would try to apply anti-discrimination law as the authority to justify a blanket exclusion of a group specified in the act as having a protected characteristic.

She may not favour the law. She is not required by me to do so. However if she pretends that the law is something other than it is, then she's an idiot, and a fool to think that she can persuade other people that the law is other than it is.

 

[Julia9054]

Happy to be on the side of 'weirdo zealots' like Martina Navratilova

Ah yes. The Martina Navratilova that started by raising legitimate questions about fairness in women's sports but was more recently to be found on Twitter calling for women to boycott Nike because a trans woman Instagram influencer that no one except a small section of the population had heard of dared to promote a Nike sports bra to her fans in a paid promotion.
Apparently this is an insult to "real" women with breasts who might need a sports bra to do sportsing and an insult to sportswomen because she was posing in it as a fashion item and apparently you are only supposed to wear them for actual sportsing!
Batshit crazy.

 

[mudsticks]

She is an idiot, and a fool. These are not gender-based insults like 'silly cow' for example. Women can be idiots and fools as much as men - AS is both of these.

I'll say this about anybody who refuses to recognise the truth. The law is what it is. It doesn't follow that my own views are the same as the law, but I am sensible enough to recognise what the law actually says and not pretend it means the opposite. These are the actions of an idiot and a fool.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 says that a trans person has the acquired sex and gender for all purposes under the law. A High Court judge has interpreted the law as being so except in 'exceptional circumstances'. This case was in 2021. Only an idiot will then argue that because the Equality Act from eleven years earlier does not use the same form of words as the judge. Not only is that chronologically impossible, but it is not how the law functions.

The 2004 Act sets out the legal status and protections for trans people. The Equality Act 2010 does not apply exclusively to trans people, it applies to all people to say how nobody can not be discriminated against. Only an idiot would try to apply anti-discrimination law as the authority to justify a blanket exclusion of a group specified in the act as having a protected characteristic.

She may not favour the law. She is not required by me to do so. However if she pretends that the law is something other than it is, then she's an idiot, and a fool to think that she can persuade other people that the law is other than it is.

It was the dimishing 'little' part that you've noticeably left out that I was really referring to.

But whatever..
Language eh??

 

[monkers]

It was the dimishing 'little' part that you've noticeably left out that I was really referring to.

But whatever..
Language eh??

It was not a reference to her height, but a reference to her lack of capacity for critical thinking. She may be 2 metres tall and weigh 200kg for all I care, but she is a little idiot and a lightweight in critical thinking.

I have no need whatsoever to be polite to Aurora given her ongoing insults to my niece, no any need to respect her views - those of a blatant bigot.

 

[multitool]

Even Aurora's choice of language exposes bigotry...

Noticed it?

 

[mudsticks]

It was not a reference to her height, but a reference to her lack of capacity for critical thinking. She may be 2 metres tall and weigh 200kg for all I care, but she is a little idiot and a lightweight in critical thinking.

I have no need whatsoever to be polite to Aurora given her ongoing insults to my niece, no any need to respect her views - those of a blatant bigot.

No it's ok I know it wasn't reference to her actual size.

I know what belittling, or diminishing language looks and sounds like, I know it rarely reference actual size.

More to do with a hierarchy or status thing
Who has inherent power, who doesn't.

 

[monkers]

No it's ok I know it wasn't reference to her actual size.

I know what belittling, or diminishing language looks and sounds like, I know it rarely reference actual size.

More to do with a hierarchy or status thing
Who has inherent power, who doesn't.

I have no idea of the true identity of AuroraSaab, but an intellectual 'giant' she ain't, this is self-evident. I could write a report in a manner that would satisfy OFSTED but she is not a child and I'll not treat her as such.

Nobody on this forum has inherent power. It's a place for discussion where you either hold your own by using critical use of resource, evidence and reason, or you don't.

The latest nonsense from AS is that when the High Court sets legal precedence by interpretation of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 during a hearing in 2021, she claims it has no legal standing because that form of words ('exceptional circumstances') did not appear in a different act eleven years before the High Court set the legal precedent. She takes exception from me using the words used by a High Court Judge. Clearly then an idiot who believes she can make fools of the rest of us.

 

[mudsticks]

I have no idea of the true identity of AuroraSaab, but an intellectual 'giant' she ain't, this is self-evident. I could write a report in a manner that would satisfy OFSTED but she is not a child and I'll not treat her as such.

Nobody on this forum as inherent power. It's a place for discussion where you either hold your own by using critical use of resource, evidence and reason, or you don't.

The latest nonsense from AS is that when the High Court sets legal precedence by interpretation of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 during a hearing in 2021, she claims it has no legal standing because that form of words ('exceptional circumstances') did not appear in a different act eleven years before the High set the precedent. She takes exception from me using the words used by a High Court Judge. Clearly then an idiot who believes she can make fools of others.

Indeed but then some will instead resort to insult and hyperbole

 

[monkers]

Indeed but then some will instead resort to insult and hyperbole

Indeed. I'm glad to hear you agree.

Am I only allowed to respond to it politely even after so many of these posts calling trans women 'transwomen' (deliberate), 'male-bodied', men, along with all her assertions about violence against women that they are supposedly committing?

It's a pack of lies.