Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

I have never questioned that you are female. I have never said that nobody knows what their gametes are - your imagination is relentless.

You have, several times, in various guises, even trying to suggest I'm male by way of an insult. Thing is, I don't care because I know human sex is independent of what anybody thinks or perceives. Our sex is our sex regardless and I don't need for others to perceive mine as female for either discussion or validation purposes.

 

[monkers]

No you haven't. You used the moving of almost all transwomen to the male estate to claim there was never a problem in the first place, then made a ridiculous claim about what I said because you misread the numbers - failing to admit it or correct it when it was pointed out. The idea you have of yourself in your head as some sort of Olympic level debater destroying all arguments put before you is far short of reality. You depend on abuse and verbose, pompous, histrionics exactly because your arguments lack merit.

I proved that you and your cult are lying. You are still lying.

You claimed the problem is ongoing. I asked a specific question. You posted a chart trying to show that the number is in the hundreds or thousands. It never was in the hundreds or thousands.

Karen White is about all you've got, but you are not even truthful about that case. There have been political failures around prisons it is true, but this is no reason to demonise trans women who are not in prison or commit crime.

The number of cis women in prison for committing sexual assaults is a number given by you as 103. The number of trans women in women's prisons committed for sexual assault in England and Wales is zero.

In Scotland, the claim is that the number is higher. This is because prisons like HMP Grampian house male and female prisoners are housed in the same jail. It is not a mixed prison. The facilities are separate.

 

[AndyRM]

Not what I was on about though. Have a wander around a forum closer to home - them crazies get everywhere.

I don't disagree with you there!

 

[monkers]

You have, several times, in various guises, even trying to suggest I'm male by way of an insult. Thing is, I don't care because I know human sex is independent of what anybody thinks or perceives. Our sex is our sex regardless and I don't need for others to perceive mine as female for either discussion or validation purposes.

Quote me.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Medical transition is the process of taking hormone therapy followed by surgical alteration. It is complete when surgical alteration has been completed. Until someone starts taking hormones they are no different to anyone else of their biological sex.

Cross sex hormones simply change some secondary sex characteristics like growing facial hair or fat distribution. Other drugs for organic illnesses can have the same effect but nobody would suggest those on those meds are in any way different from anyone else of their biological sex.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

The trans women are a threat to cis women thing is, to me, transphobic.

And therein lies the problem. You imply that all GC argument is transphobic.
I guess you might deny that. We'll perhaps appreciate nuances of your argument when you explain why you think Rowling is a transphobe.

 

[Deleted member 159]

The number of cis women in prison for committing sexual assaults is a number given by you as 103. The number of trans women in women's prisons committed for sexual assault in England and Wales is zero.

Are these including all those men who claim to be women. I thought you said anyone (males) who chooses to be a woman is a woman? Are there subsets of women now?

 

[monkers]

But awkwardly also true unless a given set of circumstances are reached - i.e. medical transition. I'd also use the phrase "potential threat" - it's more accurate.

The Tommy Robinson and Suella Braverman approach to justify their hatred of Pakistani men.

The people with the greatest aspirations for higher office these days rely of fear mongering to promote themselves as leaders.

People you should be afraid of; people potentially risking their own deaths in rubber boats, Pakistani people, trans people, drag queens.

People you should not be afraid of, all of those intent on the destruction of human rights, with the exception of freedom of expression, which they claim is an absolute and a British value - it's not an absolute in law, never was, and never a British value.

 

[monkers]

Are these including all those men who claim to be women. I thought you said anyone (males) who chooses to be a woman is a woman? Are there subsets of women now?

You need a new argument. There are many 'subsets' of men and women. In the polling at the moment there are subsets of men and women according to the numbers they vote for the different parties - in other words subsets of belief systems. Trying to divide people up according to how you perceive them as stereotypes is plain daft. It's as daft as saying what 'women are the gentler sex' when we know that women are in prison for sexual and/or violent assault.

Just let people be instead of trying to design the means of prejudice. Thankfully there are few people like you.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Quote me.

All Monkerisms. Somebody should put a book out really. It would give L Ron Hubbard a run for his money. Schrodinger's sex: when it's unknown by readers it can be appealed to as giving the poster authority, but when it suits it can be pretended to be unknowable and irrelevant.

 

[monkers]

Cross sex hormones simply change some secondary sex characteristics like growing facial hair or fat distribution.

That's just bollocks. One day you claim one thing, another day the opposite thing. One day drugs are dangerous, the next day you trivialise their effects.

The truth about cross sex hormones for trans women is that each individual has differing experiences. In the case of trans women cross sex hormones cause tremendous atrophy of the genitals, and they develop breast tissue. These are not simply changing secondary sex characteristics. Hormones also affect brain function. Try listening to post-menopausal women. Try listening to post-menopausal men talking about their experiences of falling testosterone levels.

When trans women take cross sex hormones, it has little to no effect on facial hair, it continues to grow because like the lower voice, that mechanism has been switched on and not reversed. Facial hair is managed by a range of methods, but not hormone treatment.

A young female acquaintance of mine is embarrassed by a hairy chin, it's a naturally occurring hormonal thing. Does this place her in a subset of women?

 

[icowden]

The Tommy Robinson and Suella Braverman approach to justify their hatred of Pakistani men.

Not really. I'm pretty sure that Pakistani men were born and raised as Pakistani men.

People you should be afraid of; people potentially risking their own deaths in rubber boats, Pakistani people, trans people, drag queens.

Not sure where you are going with this. The assertion that men are more dangerous than women is born out by an awful lot of evidence. Unless hormonal change is created, that remains true if the man says that they are a woman.

No-one is suggesting that people should be afraid. What people are suggesting is that we have open discussion and some consideration of womens rights not just transmen and women's rights.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There are many 'subsets' of men and women.

There are no subsets of the two sexes.

In the polling at the moment there are subsets of men and women according to the numbers they vote for the different parties - in other words subsets of belief systems.

That's subsets of people. Trying to suggest being in the Lib Dems is a subset in the way that being male or female is is patently ridiculous.

Trying to divide people up according to how you perceive them as stereotypes is plain daft. It's as daft as saying what 'women are the gentler sex' when we know that women are in prison for sexual and/or violent assault.

Sometimes sex matters. Nobody is buying the straightforward lie that Women are Just as Bad as a principle on which to base safeguarding.

 

[AuroraSaab]

These are not simply changing secondary sex characteristics. Hormones also affect brain function.

Nobody ever changed sex by drugs or surgery. There are drugs which have effects on secondary characteristics that's all.

Try listening to post-menopausal women. Try listening to post-menopausal men talking about their experiences of falling testosterone levels.

Has their sex changed because their testosterone is zero? No it hasn't. They remain men.

When trans women take cross sex hormones, it has little to no effect on facial hair, it continues to grow because like the lower voice, that mechanism has been switched on and not reversed. Facial hair is managed by a range of methods, but not hormone treatment.

I was talking about girls who take testosterone and grow facial hair actually. Either way these are cosmetic changes.

A young female acquaintance of mine is embarrassed by a hairy chin, it's a naturally occurring hormonal thing. Does this place her in a subset of women?

No, hairy women are still women, whether naturally hairy or artifically induced. Men who remove their hair or grow it long are still men.

There are no subsets of sex however desperate you are to believe it to be so.

 

[monkers]

The context ...

I won't be taking any lessons from you on politeness, I'm afraid. I have no idea which of the 2 binary sex categories you fall into as I haven't seen your gametes (as you are so fond of saying) but it goes without saying that nobody is 'less' than anybody else, regardless of their sex.

Here is AS a few months ago doubting my sex.

The reply:

OK, don't get your testicles in a knot.

The pattern is repeating. This week again, doubting my sex, and requiring her to see my gametes before accepting that I am female.

Aurora - how do you expect people to respond to your never ceasing rudeness?