Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Right wing politician takes opportunity to garner more right wing support by taking advantage of a high profile issue. Nothing new in that.

Lots of left wing women in the UK continue to be concerned about women's rights, including the erosion of single sex spaces. It's not a left wing or progressive stance to think that these things don't matter. In fact it's regressive and right wing to think that women have no right to separate services and facilities and instead should accommodate men.

 

[monkers]

Most but not all, and particular in the discussion you where having with @AuroraSaab the fact that you couldn't held up anymore that the discussed topic was peer reviewed was kind of the point.
It;s by the way not a moderns debating style, it's as old as the city of Rome. More modern is calling a discussion ''toxic'' trying to sway the direction of a discussion with emotional blackmail and all that funstuff


No she screams a lot and if you can't stand the heat don't play with fire, i mean it's only expected that she would be an target of anyone. And there is something else, the movements she defends have a very loose interpretation of ''listen to the scientist'' there is no science behind the ''millions of climate deaths'' for example.

And a great deal of them also stopped wanting to repressent the IPCC because they don't feel comfortable with their findings. and a great deal of the ones that are affiliated with the IPCC make a great deal of money out of it because of said affiliation. still i'm not saying it's all nonsense, i'm just saying we should be upfront about things like this.
And not only known how to ask disfficult question when the person being questioned is Nigel Farage, but also then it is Ms Thurberg or anyone else. that seems to be a other problem these days.


it wasn't really about that link, and you known that, just because you went back and forth for 5 pages doesn't mean only your last response is important.


your interpretation off course far from the thurth


So you first assume what you think i would think how you would respond, and than based on that how youthink i would expect you to respond, say that i got it wrong.

I can tell you in German, Dutch, and English, that's not how this works. I don't have a bias against you, what's next you gonna think i'm Rothshild/illuminati etc? How about admitting you're wrong for once?


Again that was not really the point, there is more than enough peer-reviewed research that shows the earth isn't flat.

You known that is a bit if nit-picking right?


Again nit-picking, if there would be 28 institutes with almost the same name who are just as well-known you might have had a point, but there isn't so don't pretend it's confusing when everybody knowns where we talking about.


I starter burner accounts a long time ago because not everybody plays fair, give lots of insight, if you think i'm stirring things up that's your democratic right. I in fact wasn't/aren't given the abuse/dm's reports etc. i receive now already, don't think accounts live long if it's a bit more extreme position.



That's exactly what the court says with a bit more words. why it is misrepresented according to you? the person that sued them was judged to be receiving the wrong kind of help, afterwards she felt like she didn't need help she has received, which included so medicines to adjust her typical gender attributes.

that's merely a technicality, in this case it was mainly about a special clinic for poeple with gender related issued that by the court gets told they are not doing a good job, that is the main issue, these are heavy medicine like others already pointed out with often irriversible damage so if someone gets enrolled into that process they got to be sure it's actually needed.

i think it's very brave to share that story about you niece, and also credit to you and all that, but i then see you or anyone else doing the same for that matter whether it's deliberate or not use that as some kind of emotional higher ground if someone disagrees with you i will call you out for it.

i never said or claimed that, so i don't really see a point here.

I'm not bothering to reply to a rant like this, other than I will reply to the bolded part which is personal and I have a right of reply.

You mistake 'moral high ground' with declaring a vested interest. It surely should be correct for those who have a lived experience to share it. This is the way we learn, especially about people who are unlike a majority. One feature that has made humankind 'successful' is our ability to learn, comprehend, empathise, be creative and inventive.

'Moral high ground' is a silencing technique that people use to try to attempt to silence others. Not only does it not work, but it reveals a lot about the person saying it - so please keep saying it as often as you can. That way people know very quickly the kind of person they are dealing with.

 

[theclaud]

Most but not all, and particular in the discussion you where having with @AuroraSaab the fact that you couldn't held up anymore that the discussed topic was peer reviewed was kind of the point.
It;s by the way not a moderns debating style, it's as old as the city of Rome. More modern is calling a discussion ''toxic'' trying to sway the direction of a discussion with emotional blackmail and all that funstuff


No she screams a lot and if you can't stand the heat don't play with fire, i mean it's only expected that she would be an target of anyone. And there is something else, the movements she defends have a very loose interpretation of ''listen to the scientist'' there is no science behind the ''millions of climate deaths'' for example.

And a great deal of them also stopped wanting to repressent the IPCC because they don't feel comfortable with their findings. and a great deal of the ones that are affiliated with the IPCC make a great deal of money out of it because of said affiliation. still i'm not saying it's all nonsense, i'm just saying we should be upfront about things like this.
And not only known how to ask disfficult question when the person being questioned is Nigel Farage, but also then it is Ms Thurberg or anyone else. that seems to be a other problem these days.


it wasn't really about that link, and you known that, just because you went back and forth for 5 pages doesn't mean only your last response is important.


your interpretation off course far from the thurth


So you first assume what you think i would think how you would respond, and than based on that how youthink i would expect you to respond, say that i got it wrong.

I can tell you in German, Dutch, and English, that's not how this works. I don't have a bias against you, what's next you gonna think i'm Rothshild/illuminati etc? How about admitting you're wrong for once?


Again that was not really the point, there is more than enough peer-reviewed research that shows the earth isn't flat.

You known that is a bit if nit-picking right?


Again nit-picking, if there would be 28 institutes with almost the same name who are just as well-known you might have had a point, but there isn't so don't pretend it's confusing when everybody knowns where we talking about.


I starter burner accounts a long time ago because not everybody plays fair, give lots of insight, if you think i'm stirring things up that's your democratic right. I in fact wasn't/aren't given the abuse/dm's reports etc. i receive now already, don't think accounts live long if it's a bit more extreme position.



That's exactly what the court says with a bit more words. why it is misrepresented according to you? the person that sued them was judged to be receiving the wrong kind of help, afterwards she felt like she didn't need help she has received, which included so medicines to adjust her typical gender attributes.

that's merely a technicality, in this case it was mainly about a special clinic for poeple with gender related issued that by the court gets told they are not doing a good job, that is the main issue, these are heavy medicine like others already pointed out with often irriversible damage so if someone gets enrolled into that process they got to be sure it's actually needed.

i think it's very brave to share that story about you niece, and also credit to you and all that, but i then see you or anyone else doing the same for that matter whether it's deliberate or not use that as some kind of emotional higher ground if someone disagrees with you i will call you out for it.

i never said or claimed that, so i don't really see a point here.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

I'm not bothering to reply to a rant like this, other than I will reply to the bolded part which is personal and I have a right of reply.

at least learn how to use the quoting system.. a see to overall lowering of grades has had it's effect on education.

You mistake 'moral high ground' with declaring a vested interest. It surely should be correct for those who have a lived experience to share it. This is the way we learn, especially about people who are unlike a majority. One feature that has made humankind 'successful' is our ability to learn, comprehend, empathise, be creative and inventive.

Sure alltough humankind has the ability to adopt, adjust and learn from it's own the amount of coping mechanisms the human body has are incredible. So yes i agree there is nothing wrong with ''declaring a vested interest'' i just don't agree that it is what you are doing, at least by far not in al of your post where you drag your experiences in. Maybe you don't see that yourself but that doesn't mean you're not doing it.

'Moral high ground' is a silencing technique that people use to try to attempt to silence others. Not only does it not work, but it reveals a lot about the person saying it - so please keep saying it as often as you can. That way people know very quickly the kind of person they are dealing with.

if you want a perfect example of execution, ignorance of on actions and repeated execution, please read your own post.

 

[multitool]

Looks like there's still some way to go with ChatGPT

 

[theclaud]

Fourteen hundred posts, some ill tempered, some emotive. An often meandering discourse, sometimes interesting, sometimes pointless. And then imagine posting this.

Did you read the link?

 

[theclaud]

KJK's rhetoric is of interest, but Beth Douglas's isn't is what you seem to be saying. You're highlighting one activist, I'm highlighting another. Seems fair enough.

I think they're both of interest, as it happens. But you did actually claim, in this very thread, that Keen is a 'womens's rights activist'. She's about as much of a women's rights activist as Nadine Dorries.

 

[monkers]

You mistake 'moral high ground' with declaring a vested interest. It surely should be correct for those who have a lived experience to share it. This is the way we learn, especially about people who are unlike a majority. One feature that has made humankind 'successful' is our ability to learn, comprehend, empathise, be creative and inventive.

Sure alltough humankind has the ability to adopt, adjust and learn from it's own the amount of coping mechanisms the human body has are incredible. So yes i agree there is nothing wrong with ''declaring a vested interest'' i just don't agree that it is what you are doing, at least by far not in al of your post where you drag your experiences in. Maybe you don't see that yourself but that doesn't mean you're not doing it.

You exercise a choice when you read something, you can equally make the same choice by not reading something. Think of all that 'screen ink' you'll save if you follow your own advice.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Did you read the link?

I did read the link. It could have been posted without the accompanying comment.

I think they're both of interest, as it happens. But you did actually claim, in this very thread, that Keen is a 'womens's rights activist'. She's about as much of a women's rights activist as Nadine Dorries.

I'd say she's a women's rights activists with a narrow focus. You could certainly discuss whether her willingness to appear on tv and podcasts with US right wing/conservative media pundits is helpful or detrimental to the overall women's rights movement though.

I'm not a fan of the purity spiral though. It's all a bit Hitler's dog:

- I really like German Shepherd dogs.
- You know who else liked German Shepherds? That's right ... Hitler.

Which is what much of this thread has been of late - trying to dismiss women's concerns as fascist adjacent.

What the difference between someone going on Tucker Carlson's show and Corbyn going on Russia Today? One's an independent partisan mouthpiece, the other is state sanctioned.

Much of transactivism has a similarly narrow focus by the way, being centred solely on gaining access to women's single sex spaces rather than campaigning for their own provision.

 

[theclaud]

I did read the link. It could have been posted without the accompanying comment.



I'd say she's a women's rights activists with a narrow focus. You could certainly discuss whether her willingness to appear on tv and podcasts with US right wing/conservative media pundits is helpful or detrimental to the overall women's rights movement though.

I'm not a fan of the purity spiral though. It's all a bit Hitler's dog:

- I really like German Shepherd dogs.
- You know who else liked German Shepherds? That's right ... Hitler.

Which is what much of this thread has been of late - trying to dismiss women's concerns as fascist adjacent.

What the difference between someone going on Tucker Carlson's show and Corbyn going on Russia Today? One's an independent partisan mouthpiece, the other is state sanctioned.

Much of transactivism has a similarly narrow focus by the way, being centred solely on gaining access to women's single sex spaces rather than campaigning for their own provision.

WTAF are you on about? Purity spirals? German Shepherds (why do they keep coming up lately anyway?) Jeremy Corbyn? Just listen to what she says and engage your brain - she's an old-fashioned think-of-the-children gender conservative, a very slick grifter and a horrible narcissist. She literally announced on Tucker Carlson's show that she's not a feminist, because, well, of course she isn't a farking feminist - she despises feminists and needs her highly conservative audience (who also despise feminists) to know that. Last time I looked she had a picture of herself and Tucker Carlson as her Twitter banner. It's not fascist adjacent to have opinions one way or the other about sport, prisons, toilets or whatever. It is fascist adjacent to build a career being literally and jovially adjacent to fascists at every opportunity.

 

[classic33]

Most but not all, and particular in the discussion you where having with @AuroraSaab the fact that you couldn't held up anymore that the discussed topic was peer reviewed was kind of the point.
It;s by the way not a moderns debating style, it's as old as the city of Rome. More modern is calling a discussion ''toxic'' trying to sway the direction of a discussion with emotional blackmail and all that funstuff


No she screams a lot and if you can't stand the heat don't play with fire, i mean it's only expected that she would be an target of anyone. And there is something else, the movements she defends have a very loose interpretation of ''listen to the scientist'' there is no science behind the ''millions of climate deaths'' for example.

And a great deal of them also stopped wanting to repressent the IPCC because they don't feel comfortable with their findings. and a great deal of the ones that are affiliated with the IPCC make a great deal of money out of it because of said affiliation. still i'm not saying it's all nonsense, i'm just saying we should be upfront about things like this.
And not only known how to ask disfficult question when the person being questioned is Nigel Farage, but also then it is Ms Thurberg or anyone else. that seems to be a other problem these days.


it wasn't really about that link, and you known that, just because you went back and forth for 5 pages doesn't mean only your last response is important.


your interpretation off course far from the thurth


So you first assume what you think i would think how you would respond, and than based on that how youthink i would expect you to respond, say that i got it wrong.

I can tell you in German, Dutch, and English, that's not how this works. I don't have a bias against you, what's next you gonna think i'm Rothshild/illuminati etc? How about admitting you're wrong for once?


Again that was not really the point, there is more than enough peer-reviewed research that shows the earth isn't flat.(1)

You known that is a bit if nit-picking right?(2)


Again nit-picking, if there would be 28 institutes with almost the same name who are just as well-known you might have had a point, but there isn't so don't pretend it's confusing when everybody knowns where we talking about.(3)


I starter burner accounts a long time ago because not everybody plays fair, give lots of insight, if you think i'm stirring things up that's your democratic right. I in fact wasn't/aren't given the abuse/dm's reports etc. i receive now already, don't think accounts live long if it's a bit more extreme position.



That's exactly what the court says with a bit more words. why it is misrepresented according to you? the person that sued them was judged to be receiving the wrong kind of help, afterwards she felt like she didn't need help she has received, which included so medicines to adjust her typical gender attributes.

that's merely a technicality, in this case it was mainly about a special clinic for poeple with gender related issued that by the court gets told they are not doing a good job, that is the main issue, these are heavy medicine like others already pointed out with often irriversible damage so if someone gets enrolled into that process they got to be sure it's actually needed.

i think it's very brave to share that story about you niece, and also credit to you and all that, but i then see you or anyone else doing the same for that matter whether it's deliberate or not use that as some kind of emotional higher ground if someone disagrees with you i will call you out for it.

i never said or claimed that, so i don't really see a point here.

1) If it wasn't the point, as you now claim, why introduce the "argument" in the first place? Provide two of those peer reviewed papers.

2) Again you made the claim, not me. Science disagrees with you. You claim it's "nit picking" when it's pointed out you're wrong, I don't. You don't want correcting, don't introduce a false argument.

3) There's a Travistock Clinic listed near me. With that in mind, I think you should be a bit more careful with your spelling, and cease assuming, which you've claimed is wrong, that there can be no other places with similar names. It doesn't matter if there's one or as you said "if there would be 28 institutes with almost the same name". It's the damage that can be done by using a similar name, then dismissing it as though it didn't matter.

 

[multitool]

Kellie-Jay Keen is a Women's Rights campaigner in the same way that Harold Shipman worked tirelessly to to reduce NHS waiting lists.

 

[theclaud]

3) There's a Travistock Clinic listed near me. With that in mind, I think you should be a bit more careful with your spelling, and cease assuming, which you've claimed is wrong, that there can be no other places with similar names. It doesn't matter if there's one or as you said "if there would be 28 institutes with almost the same name". It's the damage that can be done by using a similar name, then dismissing it as though it didn't matter.

As Least Likely Person Ever To Defend 'dutchguy', may I just say that this time he's right and this is ridiculous? It was an obvious spelling mistake/typo by a poster whose output is always about 50% typo anyway. I know you like to conduct your own threads which are largely independent of what everyone else is talking about, but if this continues I'm going to start calling it the Travistock just to annoy you.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Don't known about the particular case of N However not so long ago the Travistock clinic, got convicted for a failure for duty of care in a similar case. (someone who wanted to de-transition)
and if you follow just the newarticles about it in the judgement it quite clearly says her desire to transition wasn't challenged enough. So whatever you want to call that, there is a court ruling saying it's not up to standards. Especially with children, saying ''no'' is part of upbringing sometimes. I agree with @Unkraut that these procedures for transitioning with children are very damaging. Damage that can't be undone

So far as I can tell nobody was convicted. There was a civil case, which I think has yet to be decided, over the provision of medication to young people presenting as trans.

 

[monkers]

Right wing politician takes opportunity to garner more right wing support by taking advantage of a high profile issue. Nothing new in that.

Lots of left wing women in the UK continue to be concerned about women's rights, including the erosion of single sex spaces. It's not a left wing or progressive stance to think that these things don't matter. In fact it's regressive and right wing to think that women have no right to separate services and facilities and instead should accommodate men.

The games up. You really don't know how this works.

It's as I have said all along. The forces of trans exclusion from the left parties have combined with the forces of trans exclusion from right wing parties on the right in the cause of common interest, and of course their allies and supporters too. The money mostly comes from christian republican groups in the USA.

Keen is not a feminist with women's interests at heart, she has a degree in theology, she's from the christian right.

I also agree with @winjim who was careful to point out that left and right wing is a term that applies to economics.

You may be strong on the message coming from the left AS, where biological essentialism is rooted; however the gender critical group come from the right with Christian moral objection. The people you fight with are not trans people, they are those women who are socially liberal about trans lives.

There are trans activists who fight both sides simultaneously. As a consequence you don't understand some of the taunts as responses to the propaganda -that because they are responding the gender critical group.

You still doubt me? Keen threatens to 'annihilate' all those who disagree with her, women, police officers, trans activists, etc.

This is a battle between women about the social liberty of women including trans women against two groups of women who are zealots. You hold the minority view among women.


View: https://youtu.be/a8C8W61V0rc

When get to understand this, you'll begin to understand how voting on the Scottish Bill went the way it did with mixed voting from each party.