Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Women are there to be impregnated and create new offspring to propagate the species.

No we are farking not! This such reductionist bullshit. Some of us have minds too, not just brainless bodies with rampant hormones.

We are not just hanging about waiting to be the sexual objects of men, and gagging to make babies. Frankly you must be embarrassing plenty of men with this kind of talk.

Want to know why so many women either divorce or wish they could do so in later life? It's because men with this attitude think this is all we exist for, providing this and every other service for men.

 

[Ian H]

Yes, because men are stronger, more predatory. That isn't to say that there aren't outliers, but biologically men are there to impregnate as many women as possible to make babies. Women are there to be impregnated and create new offspring to propagate the species.

That is an astonishingly reductive, antediluvian theory of humankind. You can find allies in the murkiest corners of Twitter.

 

[multitool]

That is an astonishingly reductive, antediluvian theory of humankind. You can find allies in the murkiest corners of Twitter.

Ahhh....but remember that the cornerstone of 'phobe thinking is the primacy of biology (when it suits, natch)

 

[AuroraSaab]

More recently she's advocated that womens toilets be turned into an area that "normal people" don't want to use, so they, "normal people" should have separate facilities made available to them. Basically she wants women to go back to the early days of disabled toilets, hidden away, where you wouldn't go.

I have said no such thing. I've given you the benefit of the doubt and presumed you misunderstood, but it's obvious you do understand, you just have no empathy for anyone but yourself in this issue.

I can't be bothered to decipher your stream of consciousness posts anymore tbh. You continually pretend the crime stats that show men are overwhelmingly more likely to commit violent and sexual crime simply don't exist, which is laughable.

I can quite happily say not every transwoman accused of a violent crime is genuinely trans. Some are gaming the system. But you want to claim them all for the trans community it seems - well ok, that's fine. You can't really complain when the stats show what they show then.

 

[icowden]

That is an astonishingly reductive, antediluvian theory of humankind. You can find allies in the murkiest corners of Twitter.

Eh? Mammals. They breed. The male ones impregnate as many females as possible. That's nature.

 

[classic33]

That's slightly inaccurate. It is the risk of men, not transwomen using/playing the system. There are some grounds for suspecting that people like "Barbie Kardashian" are not transwomen at all, but men gaming the system. There is certainly a body of evidence that suggests some men use trans identities as a kind of sexual fetish. I don't think these are the same people as those who genuinely consider themselves Trans.

That's not really borne out by statistics. There are far more predatory males, and far more sexual abuse of children by males than women.

Again, I don't think anyone has said that. Transmen tend not to get talked about as men are the physically stronger sex and capable of sexual penetration. A generic "smaller weaker" person identifying as a "stronger bigger" person is less problematic than vice versa.

Yes, because men are stronger, more predatory. That isn't to say that there aren't outliers, but biologically men are there to impregnate as many women as possible to make babies. Women are there to be impregnated and create new offspring to propagate the species.

Fair point. I think the toilet thing is a dead cat.

Its been said that trans women, in solitary, in prison are a danger to other inmates. Even if they're in another prison. They are gaming the system, and present a clear danger to every woman and her female children whose paths they may cross.

As for Barbie Kardashian, there's other issues to consider. Nearly all hidden from public view by a court order. How many other boys at your junior school had what was clearly a girls first name. In his case Gabrielle. The gender recognition certificate paperwork was filed by someone else, not him as he wasn't legally old enough to do so.

Sticking with Ireland for this part, but the difference in number of gender recognition certificates issued since the law was changed, is in single figures. Weighted in favour of women becoming men, not men becoming women. Out of a total of less than 600, only five have ever been mentioned on here. Where are the rest of them? I'd say they're just getting on with life, or at least trying to.

 

[monkers]

Eh? Mammals. They breed. The male ones impregnate as many females as possible. That's nature.

Not all mammals are guinea pigs. Humans aspire to other purposes, even the females. Who knew?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Medical opinions do and will vary, it's why some people insist on second opinions.

Yes, and experts in the UK, Holland, Sweden, and elsewhere, have looked again and changed their opinions on puberty blockers and gender affirming care for children. And sporting bodies and their medical experts have looked at the evidence and excluded transwomen from the female category.

You don't seem too thrilled about them getting 'second opinions' on the evidence and changing their procedures though.

Your own approach, like some others, is to seize upon any argument possible to prevent trans people having access to their own human rights. This is the approach even when one of the arguments directly acts in contradiction with another - something which has been pointed out to you so often.

What human rights do trans people not have? It's not a human right to have access to the other sex's single sex spaces, whether it's in sports or a refuge. Why does your much touted United Nations human right to dignity trump other people's right to the same thing?

If the owner of a venue feels strongly that they don't happen to agree with a hirer, can they not insist on their philosophical beliefs are protected too by denying the hiring?

What you can't do is ask someone to appear then cancel because your staff don't like her. You couldn't do it because they don't like black people or Jews or gays or trans, and you can't do it because her views are gender critical.

It's curious isn't it, that Maya Forstater can have a protected belief, but those with the opposite protected belief are not deemed worthy of the same protection under the law?

Discrimination against people just because you don't like them is illegal. As it should be. Gender ideology beliefs are protected in law. As they should be. You are wrong to say they aren't.

What is being insisted upon here is that those with a gender critical belief must be free to express it wherever they like, but those who don't agree should just shut up, and those caught up in the middle should just be complicit with the wishes of the GC brigade.

No, what is being insisted upon is that you cannot discriminate against someone on the grounds of their beliefs. If the Stand club had booked India Willoughby and then cancelled when their staff said they didn't want to work with a trans person that too would quite rightly be discrimination and against the law.

You seem to want the law and free speech to not apply when you don't like the victim of discrimination. I think it should apply to everyone whether I like them or not.

Funnily enough, the Stand club have also sought a second opinion, a legal one - they've apologised and acknowledged they acted unlawfully.

 

[monkers]

I have said no such thing. I've given you the benefit of the doubt and presumed you misunderstood, but it's obvious you do understand, you just have no empathy for anyone but yourself in this issue.

How can you fail to see? Classic is showing high-levels of empathy for others, saying he understands the prejudice and discrimination others experience due to the prejudice and discrimination he has experienced himself.

 

[classic33]

I have said no such thing. I've given you the benefit of the doubt and presumed you misunderstood, but it's obvious you do understand, you just have no empathy for anyone but yourself in this issue.

I can't be bothered to decipher your stream of consciousness posts anymore tbh. You continually pretend the crime stats that show men are overwhelmingly more likely to commit violent and sexual crime simply don't exist, which is laughable.

I can quite happily say not every transwoman accused of a violent crime is genuinely trans. Some are gaming the system. But you want to claim them all for the trans community it seems - well ok, that's fine. You can't really complain when the stats show what they show then.

Vicki Bevan, charged and found guilty of two charges of rape on a minor. Precedent has been set, women can now be charged with rape in England.

Care to correct that first part?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Ahhh....but remember that the cornerstone of 'phobe thinking is the primacy of biology (when it suits, natch)

It is a material reality that people are treated differently because of their sexed bodies. Pretending that isn't relevant is to deny the extent of women's oppression. It's a sexist and regressive position to suggest that women's biology is irrelevant and is trumped by someone's subjective feeling of gender.

 

[monkers]

Yes, and experts in the UK, Holland, Sweden, and elsewhere, have looked again and changed their opinions on puberty blockers and gender affirming care for children. And sporting bodies and their medical experts have looked at the evidence and excluded transwomen from the female category.

Oh no, not the bloody Swedish study misinformation again.

Let's put the record straight on this. Stock et al and you are willfully misapplying the findings of the author Cecilia Dhejne. Stock referenced the work in her submission to the all party select committee, but the evidence was disregarded after clarity given by Dhejne herself was submitted.

Cecilia Dhejne said,

“The individual […] who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings. The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts, and crime disappear. This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.

“As to the criminality metric itself, we were measuring and comparing the total number of convictions, not conviction type. We were not saying that cisgender males are convicted of crimes associated with marginalization and poverty. We didn’t control for that and we were certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk. What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar rates of convictions. As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.

“The difference we observed between the 1989 to 2003 cohort and the control group is that the trans cohort group accessed more mental health care, which is appropriate given the level of ongoing discrimination the group faces. What the data tells us is that things are getting measurably better and the issues we found affecting the 1973 to 1988 cohort group likely reflects a time when trans health and psychological care was less effective and social stigma was far worse.”

You will have known about the existence of this correction to this misrepresentation, but you never reference it. Instead you maintain the line made by Stock - which Dhejne says is false.

I'm going to guess that you will keep on repeating this nonsense ad nauseum until your last breath, along with all your other false readings of data, and various bits of cherry-picking.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Vicki Bevan, charged and found guilty of two charges of rape on a minor. Precedent has been set, women can now be charged with rape in England.

Care to correct that first part?

Oh ffs. Can you find me a single country in the world where the crime statistics show that women comit the vast majority of violent or sexual crimes? Just one, anywhere. To make it easier for you, not even the vast majority, just say 30%. Find a country where women comit 30% of the sex crimes and post the stats on here.

 

[newfhouse]

biologically men are there to impregnate as many women as possible to make babies. Women are there to be impregnated and create new offspring to propagate the species.

Not just impregnating, don’t forget there’s a whole heap of ’splaining to be done by us chaps too.

 

[monkers]

Discrimination against people just because you don't like them is illegal.

No it isn't. This is wrong.