Gender again. Sorry!

[CXRAndy]

 

[monkers]

Mantra? bit no "you bigot" on the end (as was directed at me).

Now you are switching to talking about "trans activists" where I was talking about Trans women in general. Again switching around misrepresenting what I said.

I'm giving up on this discussion as those arguing pro-exclusion are continually mis-representing what I actually said. I had hoped to get to appreciate the exclusion side of the debate but I find myself being ever more convinced the exclusion is wrong. And sensible discussion is quite impossible when people repeatedly "but you said <something I didn't say atall>"

Pity but bye. Can't discuss when I just get repeated personal insults, continually mis-quoted/min-represented.

Iamn

You are of course correct. It's why discussions become echo chambers of transphobic hate though, because the majority of people who post here are chased off by the unreasonable behaviour of the absolutists.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Maybe they find posters calling people pr*cks, c*nts, and di*ckheads a bit of a deterrent too.

 

[Ian H]

Maybe they find posters calling people pr*cks, c*nts, and di*ckheads a bit of a deterrent too.

Excellent use of the Da*ly Ma*l asterisk there.

 

[monkers]

Maybe they find posters calling people pr*cks, c*nts, and di*ckheads a bit of a deterrent too.

You fail to understand, that after a person has stated their identity, which after all is a private matter, you insist that they are wrong, that everybody like them is wrong, that everybody that agree with you is wrong, that domestic law that agrees with you is wrong, that the international law is wrong, and that anybody who disagrees with you is 'delusional', then just maybe you are the one with the problem.

Just about anybody with any sensibilities knows that it wrong to ask a person of colour where they are from, and then say ''no, where are you really from''.

When reasonable attempts at discussion are exhausted, and patience of reasonable people is exhausted, and you continue to use words telling them that they must be mentally ill not to agree with you or your bigoty, you really can't think it wrong for them to just tell you to ''funk off''.

That is where we are at. You calling people extremely naive, mentally deficient for not accepting your lies, your twisting, the placement of these falsehoods into other peoples mouths, the dismissive hand waving of facts, the memes, the denial of facts, the internet scraping the outlier cases that prove only that to every situation there is an outlier case, the list goes on and on.

Even quotes from legal cases, legal precedent, get short shrift, let alone the lived experiences of the people you demonise as being all paedophiles, predators, woman haters etc etc.

When you are presented with the data that disproves it, you ignore, shift the goal posts are repeat earlier lies. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

The most polite people withdraw without a word, the next group are polite people who tell you why they are leaving, the next group tell you to go funk yourself and walk away, and then there's people like me who at least resort share what they really think of you.

This is not a rant, it's a measured delivery of a lesson you need to hear.

 

[CXRAndy]

You fail to understand, that after a person has stated their identity, which after all is a private matter, you insist that they are wrong, that everybody like them is wrong, that everybody that agree with you is wrong, that domestic law that agrees with you is wrong, that the international law is wrong, and that anybody who disagrees with you is 'delusional', then just maybe you are the one with the problem.

Just about anybody with any sensibilities knows that it wrong to ask a person of colour where they are from, and then say ''no, where are you really from''.

When reasonable attempts at discussion are exhausted, and patience of reasonable people is exhausted, and you continue to use words telling them that they must be mentally ill not to agree with you or your bigoty, you really can't think it wrong for them to just tell you to ''funk off''.

That is where we are at. You calling people extremely naive, mentally deficient for not accepting your lies, your twisting, the placement of these falsehoods into other peoples mouths, the dismissive hand waving of facts, the memes, the denial of facts, the internet scraping the outlier cases that prove only that to every situation there is an outlier case, the list goes on and on.

Even quotes from legal cases, legal precedent, get short shrift, let alone the lived experiences of the people you demonise as being all paedophiles, predators, woman haters etc etc.

When you are presented with the data that disproves it, you ignore, shift the goal posts are repeat earlier lies. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

The most polite people withdraw without a word, the next group are polite people who tell you why they are leaving, the next group tell you to go funk yourself and walk away, and then there's people like me who at least resort share what they really think of you.

This is not a rant, it's a measured delivery of a lesson you need to hear.

Yet you were wrong all along.

Trans women were never women, just males deluded to think they were.

It's not for ordinary folk to go along with someone's delusion

 

[AuroraSaab]

Just about anybody with any sensibilities knows that it wrong to ask a person of colour where they are from, and then say ''no, where are you really from''.

No one is obliged to believe a man who says he is a woman. Equating that refusal with racism is you yet again appropriating black people's oppression to further your cause. It's frankly a bit racist that you keep doing so.

You just fall back on bad language and personal abuse because that's the kind of person you are; someone who can't tolerate those who will not swallow your ideology and the persona that you present on here.

The mildest of disagreement with you triggers abuse, even from posters who barely express a view. You are a perfect example of the aggressive entitlement of the trans movement and why women say No.

 

[monkers]

No one is obliged to believe a man who says he is a woman. Equating that refusal with racism is you yet again appropriating black people's oppression to further your cause. It's frankly a bit racist that you keep doing so.

You just fall back on bad language and personal abuse because that's the kind of person you are; someone who can't tolerate those who will not swallow your ideology and the persona that you present on here.

The mildest of disagreement with you triggers abuse, even from posters who barely express a view. You are a perfect example of the aggressive entitlement of the trans movement and why women say No.

I say repeatedly you are entitled to your own opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts. I agree with that women have a need to be safe and feel safe. I disagree with you that trans women with a GRC are making women less safe.

There is no evidence that trans women with a GRC are as dangerous to women as men. This is a fiction that the data simply does not support. It is a gross lie that intends harm. I'll continuing batting down your lies because they are manifestly cruelty.

Sport I have always agreed is a difficult area, but most of you arguments are frankly absurd when you get to the point that that pub games and board games need to exclude trans women players. You have tried to have trans women excluded from Park Run, events well-known for being social events rather than truly competitive. You even wanged on about Strava segments. Everybody knows that most of the top times are taken by people in cars, on motorbikes, e-bikes, scooters whatever, let only competed on the same day under the same conditions.

Your attitudes directed towards people whether they be trans people, or cis people with a different opinion to you frankly disgust me. You have no basis for complaint about vulgar language while you continue to say that everybody else with a different opinion has some mental illness. Multitool used to point out the number of people refusing to engage with you because of your rudeness, and Ian is just the latest casualty of it.

If I am ''deranged'' or ''delusional'' for challenging what is obvious to me as cruelty, then you have neurosis accompanied by complexes.

You provide no service to women by convincing them they are vulnerable to attack form trans women with a GRC in women's toilets. You wrongly inculcate a moral panic and fear. it is a cruelty you impose on women, who fears are best allayed by the reassurance from facts.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There is no evidence that trans women with a GRC are as dangerous to women as men. This is a fiction that the data simply does not support. It is a gross lie that intends harm. I'll continuing batting down your lies because they are manifestly cruelty.

Same risk as any other man. It's impossible to do case by case per individual re safeguarding for spaces and services. Should men who have passed a crb check be allowed in women's spaces? Of course not.

You can behave how you like on here, I suppose. I don't think it does your argument any favours.

 

[monkers]

Same risk as any other man. It's impossible to do case by case per individual re safeguarding for spaces and services. Should men who have passed a crb check be allowed in women's spaces? Of course not.

You can behave how you like on here, I suppose. I don't think it does your argument any favours.

My language tracks your own. We disagree about what is rudeness. We no doubt will continue to disagree about many things. Some of our views may change, as they should. We should change as we learn.

What will not change is that when your MO is to state that those of us with different opinions are necessarily mentally ill, despite having opinions formed by the study of the available facts. Nor do I think it rude to use vulgar language in response after appeals to reason have failed.

I don't think lies intended to harm people should enjoy any favour. And this is how we fundamentally differ.

 

[mickle]

Except I never suggested the people photographed "don't qualify as women", nothing of the sort.

Why do those presenting the exclusion argument keep claiming I'm saying things I haven't? Impossible to discuss anything.

What is there in

that suggests it's a joke, no smiley faces, no "Haha" no hint whatsoever). To me it's throw an insult and then when picked up "Oh, I was only joking".

Ian

So you *do* think they qualify as women??

 

[monkers]

So you *do* think they qualify as women??

You are replying to somebody who announced they were leaving the thread. He named you as one of those he needed to escape from.

Anyway the answer to your question is, in the case of the UK and all members of the Council of Europe, the law tells you who qualifies to call themselves a woman. While you remain free to criticise the law or the law makers, it is incumbent on you to respect the privacy of people.

When you attempt public ridicule of people with the fundamental right to live the life they wish to live, you say much more about yourself than you say about them. That you think that you are not the bigot is laughable.

 

[mickle]

You are replying to somebody who announced they were leaving the thread. He named you as one of those he needed to escape from.

Anyway the answer to your question is, in the case of the UK and all members of the Council of Europe, the law tells you who qualifies to call themselves a woman. While you remain free to criticise the law or the law makers, it is incumbent on you to respect the privacy of people.

When you attempt public ridicule of people with the fundamental right to live the life they wish to live, you say much more about yourself than you say about them. That you think that you are not the bigot is laughable.

Tel me then please, how is one to discern between a man who is a a crossdressing autogynephilic fetishist and a man who is a transwoman? Is there overlap between the two groups?

 

[icowden]

Tel me then please, how is one to discern between a man who is a a crossdressing autogynephilic fetishist and a man who is a transwoman? Is there overlap between the two groups?

I'd say one cannot, but there is no overlap as the transwoman believes that they are a woman whilst the fetishist just gets sexual kicks from it.

 

[monkers]

Tel me then please, how is one to discern between a man who is a a crossdressing autogynephilic fetishist and a man who is a transwoman? Is there overlap between the two groups?

I thought you ''always knew''. Isn't that always the claim?

Those pictures you posted as in the context of a discussion about trans women with a GRC, how did you know that they are all trans women with a GRC? How did you ''discern''?