monkers
Legendary Member
I see you wasted that $100. A good job you can afford to.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I see you wasted that $100. A good job you can afford to.
monkers
Legendary Member
You haven't answered the questions. You've done everything but. You've tried deviation, misdirection, fiction, and a measure of personal abuse. Did you answer the questions? No. In response you gave me a list of people who killed other people - but were any of them trans women who murdered females? No. Instead you went on about prisons and Isla Bryson who we both know was not committed to a woman's prison.
Your approach was purely tactical - you did anything but answer the questions. Ordinarily it's perfectly acceptable to say 'I don't know'. However in your case you can't, because then everything you've said previously is shown to be a house of cards.
And it's all on the record, much as before.
classic33
Me
Which is what she's done on every thread where the subject is raised.
D
Deleted member 121
Guest
If i may deviate slightly to offer some AI assisted stats....
* "The thread is about the debate on gender identity and trans rights, especially in relation to women’s spaces and sports. The participants have different opinions and perspectives on these issues, and often engage in heated arguments and personal attacks"
* "Latest posts: The last three posts are from users monkers, CXRAndy, and classic33. They are responding to another user, AuroraSaab, who is a vocal critic of trans women’s access to women’s spaces. They accuse her of dodging questions, using faulty logic, and repeating the same arguments on every thread."
This AI stuff seems to know the score, but like the rest of us, is largely very confused about the purpose of CXRAndy...
* "The thread is about the debate on gender identity and trans rights, especially in relation to women’s spaces and sports. The participants have different opinions and perspectives on these issues, and often engage in heated arguments and personal attacks"
* "Latest posts: The last three posts are from users monkers, CXRAndy, and classic33. They are responding to another user, AuroraSaab, who is a vocal critic of trans women’s access to women’s spaces. They accuse her of dodging questions, using faulty logic, and repeating the same arguments on every thread."
This AI stuff seems to know the score, but like the rest of us, is largely very confused about the purpose of CXRAndy...
AuroraSaab
Squire
Personal abuse? That's your modus operandi not mine.
Transwomen are men. It's the only requirement for being a transwoman. You seek to have us believe they are magically different from other men, without evidence as to how and why. So when we talk of male violence you think you can deflect from the discussion because, magically, these special men must be unhitched from talk of male pattern violence because you say so.
This allows you to say I haven't answered the question, when the question is actually why male patterns of violence don't apply to these men with special identities and instead they must be treated as a separate category. They aren't, any more than green eyed men should be a separate category.
No, you saw a headline photo and didn't read the article.
Once again though, when the problem is almost exclusively male violence, where is the evidence that some men are special and the patterns don't apply to them? We know the crime and prison stats tell us different.
One last year. Considering how tiny you keep telling us the trans population is you'd think it would be zero really. If we go with the discredited census figure of 35k transwomen, 1 out of 35k is a high ratio. If we go with Stonewall's figure of around 250k, it's still quite high.
(If we are including cross dressers then quite a few others are serving sentences for the murder/manslaughter of women. Stonewall include cross dressers under the trans umbrella of course, though I expect you'll say unless they have a GRC they aren't really trans).
By single females? None in the last 25 years. Two by females acting in association with males. Which isn't many considering women are 40 million in number, and 50% of the population. Neither were feminists from the Internet btw.
So statistically, taking into account the relative sizes of the populations, transwomen are far more likely to murder women than females are to murder transwomen.....
Violent crime is almost exclusively an issue of male violence though. Special identities have no bearing on that.
Last edited:
multitool
Pharaoh
https://x.com/LBC/status/1753870734575747349?s=20
This is so sad.
This is the reality for trans people.
The anti-trans 'community' truly are repulsive humans. All of them.
This is so sad.
This is the reality for trans people.
The anti-trans 'community' truly are repulsive humans. All of them.
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
The requirement for being a trans woman is to have your gender identity recognised in law by the state as enacted by parliament.
A trans woman with a GRC is both female and a woman - that's the law.
You don't like the law, but that doesn't stop it from being the law.
monkers
Legendary Member
They can not recognise themselves as being the force for evil that they are - they just think they are 'not required to be kind' to others which is tantamount to an admission to cruelty.
multitool
Pharaoh
It's a cult.
monkers
Legendary Member
Absolutely not. The requirement is for you to answer the questions since you are the one here making the special pleading.
If trans women are harming women as you claim, you should have no difficulty producing the evidence. Whenever you asked for evidence you go into greasy pig mode because you can not. You look for all manner of justification for your extreme bigotry. You and others that is, trans people have never felt less safe - that is because of the language being used by you and others.
Read the questions again. Bring actual evidence to the claims. We both know that you can not. We both know that you can not bring yourself to admit that you can not. The ugly face of fascism is here, and you are wearing it.
AuroraSaab
Squire
No, it isn't according to Stonewall and other trans campaigning organisations.
What happened to 'You are who you say you are?' and 'It's enough to say I'm a woman'? .... which is what you have said all the time and now you don't believe in self ID.
As we've seen a hundred times, the law says people who have the protected characteristic
of Gender Reassignment should be treated as their chosen sex, but certain exclusions can still be made. Transwomen aren't women or female. You don't like biology, but that doesn't stop it from being biology.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Almost exclusively it is men that harm women. It's you that needs to prove why men with special identities should be treated differently from other men. The crime stats tell us they are no different.
They are killed far less frequently than women. Only 10 in the last 15 years or so. They are a safe demographic in the UK. Far safer than women.
'No men in women's prisons' = The ugly face of fascism.
'No men in women's sports' = extreme bigotry.
This endless overwrought hyperbole is all there is left to fall back on because increasingly the public are not interested in changing the law to meet your demands.
monkers
Legendary Member
You'll need to read back what I've said, because as usual you have it all wrong.
It's not acceptable to keep on making these false claims - but it seems that because your argument is so weak, that this is just one more tactic that you must resort to.
Show me where I've said that I favour instant self-ID over everything else. Helpful hint - you won't be able to as I've never said so.
classic33
Me
Almost?
As in not exclusively?
Just like the lass that got you back posting on this thread. Who'd planned on what she'd do to her victim. But for you the fact that there was a lad as her accomplice, who was involved in some parts of the planning, it makes it less important that the lead person was a woman(female to suit you). It removes/excuses some of the blame/responsibility for her actions in sticking a knife into another person with the intention of taking a life.
