Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
He disputes many of the allegations - edited, wasn't his review, condemns non consenting sex with children ....

His main argument is that children can consent and his stated interest is in getting the age of consent lowered to 14. An excuse is that 14 year olds are already having sex and shouldn't be criminalised for this. I can't recall the last time 2 14 year olds were prosecuted. We all know the law is intended to protect children from adults. Those who say 'S/he looked 16... I didn't know they were 14...' would be able to say 'S/he looked 14... I didn't know they were 12...'.

There's no great demand from kids or the general public to change consent laws. It makes me uncomfortable that the people wanting it lowered are mostly middle aged men, under the guise of worrying about 14 year olds being prosecuted.
Tatchell should be free to make his case though, however much I dislike his views, as his views aren't illegal. I just wish police forces and so on would stop working with him and giving him our money.
 
Last edited:

icowden

Legendary Member
He disputes many of the allegations - edited, wasn't his review, condemns non consenting sex with children ....
Tatchell should be free to make his case though, however much I dislike his views, as his views aren't illegal. I just wish police forces and so on would stop working with him and giving him our money.
I agree with all of that. It is amazing though just how many things the chap "didn't realise". Usually writers of non-fiction do at least *some* research into what they are doing.

His defence of "I didn't know" wears a bit thin the 340th time he uses it.
I'm surprised there isn't a line in there along the lines of "Of course, when I wrote that article for the Jimmy Saville Foundation in aid of reducing the legal age for sexual intercourse, none of us knew that he was a predatory paedophile. There had been no clues whatsoever as my great friend Garry Glitter will attest..."
 

CXRAndy

Guru
A federal appeals court ruled Monday that Alabama can enforce a ban outlawing the use of puberty blockers and hormones to treat transgender children
 

CXRAndy

Guru
America is a foreign country with which we increasingly share little more than a mostly common language.

This is the country where all this crazy ideology started. They're coming to their senses, like we are
 

icowden

Legendary Member
You ignorant moron
I think you are being *slightly* unfair here.
There is a clear difference between the history of men living as women and the modern movement of transgenderism where medicine has progressed to a level that surgical alteration and hormone treatment can be used.

I don't think that the issue would be anywhere near as problematic if it were not for surgical and hormonal interventions being offered to people who are *very* young. If 14 year old Tim wants to live as Tammy and wear a dress, it would raise a few eyebrows. If, on the other hand, Tim wants to have his penis removed, a vagina constructed and take hormone treatment before he has even finished puberty, that should raise child protection and mental health concerns IMHO. These are not things to be done on a whim. (Same applies to Tammy who wants to become Tim and have her breasts removed and a penis constructed and who may be left in lifelong pain).

Historically the only surgical intervention available was castration which, a lot of the time, resulted in death and wouldn't leave you looking like a lady, but like a Eunuch.
 
D

Deleted member 121

Guest
I think you are being *slightly* unfair here.
There is a clear difference between the history of men living as women and the modern movement of transgenderism where medicine has progressed to a level that surgical alteration and hormone treatment can be used.

I don't think that the issue would be anywhere near as problematic if it were not for surgical and hormonal interventions being offered to people who are *very* young. If 14 year old Tim wants to live as Tammy and wear a dress, it would raise a few eyebrows. If, on the other hand, Tim wants to have his penis removed, a vagina constructed and take hormone treatment before he has even finished puberty, that should raise child protection and mental health concerns IMHO. These are not things to be done on a whim. (Same applies to Tammy who wants to become Tim and have her breasts removed and a penis constructed and who may be left in lifelong pain).

Historically the only surgical intervention available was castration which, a lot of the time, resulted in death and wouldn't leave you looking like a lady, but like a Eunuch.

Well that GCSE ethics covered. How about GCSE mathematics?

Tim and Tammy have £10 altogether. Tammy has £1.60 more than Tim. Tim spends one third of his money. How much money have Tim and Tammy now got in total?
 
I don't think that the issue would be anywhere near as problematic if it were not for surgical and hormonal interventions being offered to people who are *very* young. If 14 year old Tim wants to live as Tammy and wear a dress, it would raise a few eyebrows. If, on the other hand, Tim wants to have his penis removed, a vagina constructed and take hormone treatment before he has even finished puberty, that should raise child protection and mental health concerns IMHO. These are not things to be done on a whim. (Same applies to Tammy who wants to become Tim and have her breasts removed and a penis constructed and who may be left in lifelong pain).

Historically the only surgical intervention available was castration which, a lot of the time, resulted in death and wouldn't leave you looking like a lady, but like a Eunuch.

Can you point us to a case where a minor, or at least somebody under 16, has had 'bottom' surgery?

Hormones, or at least those to defer puberty, are a different question and raise their own moral and scientific questions.
 
Top Bottom