Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

monkers

Legendary Member
Sex being immutable is not an uncommon belief.

Parliament has given the means for people to change the record of their sex, thus proving that 'sex' is not immutable because its definition is not restricted to biology. There are no references to women's rights due to biological sex in the EqA, neither 'hard won' as you used to say or otherwise. You did concede the point at one point in time, but quickly reverted to type and started talking crap again.

Nowhere in law, are sex-based rights defined as pertaining to biology. To be fair, in the past, the state did confuse sex and gender by treating them as one and the same; this continues, but to a lesser extent. I have no objection to asking the state and the law to be consistent to remove this conflation/confusion, but it must obviously do so in the context of Acts of Parliament that it has previously made. None of this is my fault, even though you love to attack me as if it is.

Just because a belief is common or shared between a group of people, it doesn't make it true or morally correct. Is it 'right' in any sense for the people of one religion or another to commit genocide of another group because it is their shared or 'common' belief?

If we are to live in peace, then we have to build a peaceful world. That requires acceptance of the others by all of us. You can't slice or dice equality. You can't cherry-pick from it. Either we are all equal in rights or we are not. Trans people are asking for inclusion; you are demanding their exclusion. Which group has the ideology - clearly the GC brigade with an ideology to be intolerant of difference.

In my opinion Judge Taylor was quite correct to say (and to paraphrase rather than look up his exact words) not a belief worthy of merit in a democratic society. There are a number of tests of whether true democracy is met, and one of those is the rights of the minority vote continue to be respected following an election. This is essential to nation building. The reason the country has become so shitty is that we have a government that recruited the intolerant to their cause to fulfill their political ambition. They recruited their useful idiots using three word slogans and false promises to help them in the Brexit campaign by the use of lies, false dichotomies and other linguistic devices. This began the process of breaking society.

The use of these wedge devices continues with use of an invented war on trans people. You are one of the useful idiots recruited from the left to support the bigotry of the evangelical Christian groups on the right. Never before have feminists thought it was OK to campaign against the children of other women due to difference. But here you are. What happened to that common belief?

You've now got to the point that to defend your intolerance that you say to women, 'you are not who you think you are', but support those male-dominated groups who proclaim 'women are who we permit them to be - ie baby bakers'. Then collectively you look up to men who champion this cause and cheer when they tell other women who actually know their rights to 'go fark themselves' when they won't agree.

You've lost the plot.
 
Last edited:

monkers

Legendary Member
That's quite the lengthy diatribe. The wider arguments will stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of your attempts to make it all about you and your personal circumstances. Insulting anybody who contradicts you won't change that.

As for not being classy. Only Ron Bergundy thinks it's something one should aspire to.

There you go again. My explanation is a 'diatribe'. Why? Because I refuse to share the practices of exclusion and hate?

Trust me, there's nothing classy about being a bigot.
 
I can't even be bothered to disect that hyperbolic nonsense or give your emotive special pleading more than a cursory glance. I'm happy enough to let others enjoy the paucity of your arguments.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
There you go again. My explanation is a 'diatribe'. Why? Because I refuse to share the practices of exclusion and hate?
Trust me, there's nothing classy about being a bigot.
And this perfectly illustrates why this topic is so contentious. Any thought that women's rights or spaces might need to be protected is automatically "exclusion and hate". If a man has a sexual fetish for dressing as a woman, calls himself Francesca and goes to play in a women's football team, that's fine. They are a transwoman lesbian after all even if they haven't taken any hormones or had surgery. It's only after that person rapes someone that he is no longer a transwoman but a male rapist (or for some people she is just a rapey transwoman). It seems to boggle your mind that some young women might have issues with a penis owning transwoman in their changing rooms.

Everyone must be included however ludicrous that position might seem. If an autistic 12 year old wants to take hormones and have their penis removed, that's fine - they are just expressing themselves and being true to themselves. We should not question their motives nor offer interventions from Mental Health services because it's just a normal part of growing up.

There is no bigtory or hate here. I think you would find that most people or more than happy for trans people to get the help they need, for them to be able to live the way they want, but within limits. if you want to ask me to call you she, he or they, that's fine. If you want to tell me that I *have* to do that or it infringes your human rights then you can piddle off.

There are some areas where safeguards need to be in place. The obvious one is women's sport, where to remove all rules would destroy women's sport completely.

None of this is personal, and I enjoy some of our discussions. I hope your niece lives a long and fulfilling life free from hatred and bigotry. No-one should be subject to that. But, I also don't think that the conversation should be suppressed or that concerns should be swept under the carpet.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
And neither does a dictionary.
And neither should it. It captures the meaning of words so that we can use them properly.
What a narrow, conservative, and unimaginative world you seem to inhabit. Biology is all well and good but I don’t feel the need to think about it much when I’m trying to have everyday human interactions. I mean, I went to the library this morning and asked about a book I’d ordered. Should I have enquired about the state of the librarian’s gametes too?
Why? Are you some sort of weirdo?
 

multitool

Pharaoh
But, I also don't think that the conversation should be suppressed or that concerns should be swept under the carpet.

The conversation isn't being suppressed. What is being suppressed are ridiculous arguments that are highly damaging to a minority group, and those "concerns" are hypothetical in the grand scheme of things.

There are many things to get exercised about wrt women's safety but obsessing over trans women is, quite frankly, boneheaded and not a little creepy.
 
if you want to ask me to call you she, he or they, that's fine. If you want to tell me that I *have* to do that or it infringes your human rights then you can piddle off.
In normal social discourse nobody will tell you that you must be respectful in that way, but choosing not to, even through resentment of authority, would reveal something about you.

There are some areas where safeguards need to be in place. The obvious one is women's sport, where to remove all rules would destroy women's sport completely.
Who here has called for all sporting rules to be removed? Fair enough, debate what the rules should be, but it is only sport. Me, I think VAR is a ludicrous failed experiment and I wish rugby would stop fiddling with the scrum.
 
Gender, Sex, Chromosome, maybe this is the way forward?
That makes me RSBB, Male, XY.
My pronouns are Stud/Bloke/Heterogametic....
 

IMG_4096.jpeg
 
Top Bottom