monkers
Legendary Member
The best I can say, is that you are at least a perfect example of an idiot.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The best I can say, is that you are at least a perfect example of an idiot.
cookiemonster
Veteran
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
There's a lot more to teaching (I teach 4-8 year olds) than just handing them back at the end of the day like an object you've borrowed.
For a lot of kids, we're the closest to family that they have.
Is there any subject you have knowledge of?
multitool
Pharaoh
I'm sure you've realised it already, but the "says it as it is" mentality is predicated upon parading ignorance as a virtue.
There's a lineage with it to. Straight from Andy's unthinking rejection and mistrust of the intellectual, to hard right promotion of it (think Gove's "had enough of experts" quote) right through to fascism of any variety where not only do they promote a vision of a bucolic idyll (see Nazi parade with cosplaying farm maids) but they actively kill off the intellectual class (cosmopolitan aka jews)
In current UK culture consider Farage and his talk of the "metropolitan elite". Who aren't they? The uneducated. (the Andys) Consider also why Farage always wears a tweed blazer and often a Barbour jacket. This is the coded uniform of the rural non-peasant.
Andy CXTwat can think what he likes, but the one thing you can be sure he has never done is analyse why he thinks what he does.
He'll be itching to post a laugh emoji to this to signal that he doesn't care. He can't care however, because he's too stupid to look under the bonnet of his own world view.
Last edited:
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
@multitool you make the mistake of attributing Andy with the capacity to think.
dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
You always claim other people leave because of other people's opinion's but do you ever look in the mirror?
So long story short you haven't read it but continue to claim it's not relevant because off some details you nit-picked.
I think the whole statement that activism plays an (important) role in governed policies regarding children and their future is worrying, especially since the same report says experts who didn't agree with this activism based view, where ''sidelined'' it is in line with what i posted before but still, nothing has changed.
And the poor victims and future victims described in this report suffer.
But let's get all upset about something a writer says.. on X fomerly Twitter and then those same people pretend to come up for certain rights? My @rse they fight for their own attention, over screaming the other who might otherwise get more attention disgusting really. but that's activism.
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
If I could understand what he's on about, I might agree with him.
monkers
Legendary Member
Of course I've farking read it, it was a stupid question. The point was that it wasn't necessary for anyone to read it to spot the deception, and that remains so.
If anyone is attempting nitpicking it's you.
bobzmyunkle
Senior Member
Can't fault that logic.
dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
nah, you sit too high on you high horse if you inevitably fall you won't be able too anymore.
Sure, you distract from the fact that you where asked *if* you read it because your remark didn't make much sense for someone who did read it.
which is? the report does not say activisms is involved? the report does not say children are the victim? oh wait you went nit-picking and claim the other side activism was included too and brand @AuroraSaab as an activist in the progress, how woke of you blaming the other side and attempt to cancel disagreeing opinions at the same time..
But if we take you nit-picking aside i think no activism should be included in matters like this rather the persons that where sidelined the ''experts'' (no not those in your facebook lists) and maybe come with an approach that does not victimize children.
i learned from the best, and still i have to crown you the absolute winner on this one.
D
Deleted member 159
Guest
Truly shocking, the whole gender ideology should be outlawed, those involved prosecuted, including parents/carers who abused these poor kids
View: https://youtu.be/qjfKXhSusFA?si=LiNF_e9wrWMBAfuZ
View: https://youtu.be/qjfKXhSusFA?si=LiNF_e9wrWMBAfuZ
monkers
Legendary Member
Look I know that English is not your first language, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Aurora made a claim that Cass talked about activism, and then provided a quote from an article in the BMJ, (not the Cass Report) that included the reference to activism.
When challenged, she said something along the lines, 'well you've obviously not read the Cass report'. It was not necessary to read the Cass report when the quote she was using came from an article in the BMJ - an observation already made by @multitool but also spotted by me. It was a dishonest piece of writing.
Aurora also loves to call people she disagrees with 'activists'. I have no involvement in activism. It is clear that she does from her own writing, which is why the tables were turned on her. Hopefully you'll now back off, and maybe even apologise.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
I've read Hannah Barnes' Time to Think and it's actually very good, and intelligent. I suspect the Spectator has latched onto her views and twisted them to suit their own agenda, you know like activists do?
AuroraSaab
Squire
No, I didn't. I claimed nothing about Cass using that term. I made a paraphrase from the BMJ editorial and added my own view after a colon. Should have been a semi-colon, of course. I shall put myself on the grammar naugty step but it doesn't alter the fact I wasn't quoting directly or saying Cass used those words. If I want to quote I use quotation marks.
The other mention of activism was very clearly my own opinion.
This nit picking is all you've got left. Despite claiming you've read all 300 pages of Cass, you've yet to address any key points.
You've signed a few petitions. I recall you saying that. You commented on a law blog that you linked to from here. I'll screenshot that if you like.
How did you end up with 'hate mail' - your words - from JK Rowling? Can't imagine it was for a bad review of Harry Potter.
All more than I've ever done. How is it clear I'm an activist but you're not?
The fact is, anybody is free to pursue their activism in whatever way they see fit, within the law of course. Being an activist is not inherently a bad thing. I don't think people in jobs that should be based on scientific evidence should defer to ideology and activism in their work. If you let Mermaids refer kids to you directly after bypassing the GP, you ignore whistleblowers from your staff who questioned the evidence base for your treatment, and if some of your clinicians are afraid to speak out in case they are called transphobic, I think that's a service run on ideology and activism.
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
You claimed that it was obvious that I hadn't read Cass. You are being dishonest - again.
AuroraSaab
Squire
It's a brief interview with Barnes. She makes 3 main points - GIDS had some research that showed the treatment wasn't beneficial, they ignored it, clinics refused to give Cass data, GIDS did no real follow up themselves. That sounds like ideology overruling good clinical practise.
Why weren't the requisite standards of evidence required? 'Gender was like a magical cloak ... mention it and everybody turned away'.
