Cable Forum
Page 1 of 4 1 234
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   The gender ideology thread (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33712909)

jfman 18-08-2024 20:32
The gender ideology thread
 
Mod Edit (Chris): This discussion opens with a very messy split out from the Online Safety Bill thread. It is here to discuss three main strands of the so-called gender debate which tend to get lumped together under the catch-all title ‘trans rights’ (whether they ought to or not is part of the discussion).

Main issues that are on-topic for this thread:

1. Fair treatment of individuals who have a genetic disorder (especially relevant in sports, as the opening posts in this thread demonstrate)
2. Rights, freedoms and obligations of individuals who claim to ‘identify’ as a ‘gender’ other than their natural born sex
3. Medical treatment of individuals, and especially children, who may have a condition called gender dysphoria (discussion of the Cass review and its consequences for UK health policy for example).

#NoDebate is not an option. Post away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36181566)
The obvious way forward is to be a polite misogynist.
Or just claim to be a woman while doing it.

Hell they’ll even give you a gold medal for punching a few in the face.

Stephen 18-08-2024 22:38
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36181567)
Or just claim to be a woman while doing it.

Hell they’ll even give you a gold medal for punching a few in the face.
Stop talking rubbish. She is a female boxer and always has been female.

Honestly :rolleyes:

jfman 18-08-2024 22:46
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Her own camp have conceded XY chromosomes, which for me certainly should preclude you from sports where there is inherent advantages to those having undergone male puberty.

How they want to identify in their day to day life, dress etc. and preferred pronouns is up to them.

I do recognise this is off topic, but to bring it on topic there’s a significant amount of online hate originates from born males identifying as female against women wanting to protect their sex based rights under the Equality Act.

Chris 18-08-2024 23:40
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36181577)
Stop talking rubbish. She is a female boxer and always has been female.

Honestly :rolleyes:
Yeah … no. Not really. You need to stop swallowing trans rights kool aid so uncritically.

It speaks volumes that the TRA have casually exploited this boxer by raising strawman arguments and deliberately misusing language in ways designed to undermine ‘female’ as a simple, clear biological category.

There is more than enough evidence in the public domain to conclude that Imane Khelif has XY chromosomes with a disorder of sexual development that results in internal testes and, critically as far as sport goes, male puberty.

There is evidence that the IOC *knew* this before the competition began and therefore they knowingly allowed someone with male physical advantage to beat up female competitors in the ring and steal the gold medal from an actual female boxer.

Khelif’s DSD quite probably did lead to an incorrect observation of sex as female at birth, leading to ‘her’ being raised as a girl. Frankly if Khelif wishes to live private life as a woman then that’s none of anyone else’s business. In this case, in particular, it isn’t even a ‘trans rights’ issue, although some similar issues are raised. The line, however, comes when the very reason female sporting categories exist is crossed in the name of ‘inclusion’. Female sporting categories exist because it is the only way of ensuring inclusion of women in physical sports they could never win if they were compelled to compete only in a male or ‘open’ category.

The IOC however seems to have become fixated on making a political statement and whatever it knew about Khelif’s physiology, it had determined it was not going to use any such information in determining qualification for the female category. The only qualification the IOC seemed interested in was what was stamped in a passport - an obvious nonsense given the number of countries that now make it increasingly easy for men to create the legal fiction that they are women.

Sex is binary and immutable, and while people may have rights to dress and act however they choose in a liberal democracy, that right does not extend to stealing the rights and opportunities of others. Someone with a disorder of sexual development deserves compassion and support but not to the extent that they are allowed to exercise unfair advantage in sport. The IOC ought to have behaved very differently and ought to be ashamed.

Stephen 19-08-2024 00:15
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36181580)
Yeah … no. Not really. You need to stop swallowing trans rights kool aid so uncritically.

It speaks volumes that the TRA have casually exploited this boxer by raising strawman arguments and deliberately misusing language in ways designed to undermine ‘female’ as a simple, clear biological category.

There is more than enough evidence in the public domain to conclude that Imane Khelif has XY chromosomes with a disorder of sexual development that results in internal testes and, critically as far as sport goes, male puberty.

There is evidence that the IOC *knew* this before the competition began and therefore they knowingly allowed someone with male physical advantage to beat up female competitors in the ring and steal the gold medal from an actual female boxer.

Khelif’s DSD quite probably did lead to an incorrect observation of sex as female at birth, leading to ‘her’ being raised as a girl. Frankly if Khelif wishes to live private life as a woman then that’s none of anyone else’s business. In this case, in particular, it isn’t even a ‘trans rights’ issue, although some similar issues are raised. The line, however, comes when the very reason female sporting categories exist is crossed in the name of ‘inclusion’. Female sporting categories exist because it is the only way of ensuring inclusion of women in physical sports they could never win if they were compelled to compete only in a male or ‘open’ category.

The IOC however seems to have become fixated on making a political statement and whatever it knew about Khelif’s physiology, it had determined it was not going to use any such information in determining qualification for the female category. The only qualification the IOC seemed interested in was what was stamped in a passport - an obvious nonsense given the number of countries that now make it increasingly easy for men to create the legal fiction that they are women.

Sex is binary and immutable, and while people may have rights to dress and act however they choose in a liberal democracy, that right does not extend to stealing the rights and opportunities of others. Someone with a disorder of sexual development deserves compassion and support but not to the extent that they are allowed to exercise unfair advantage in sport. The IOC ought to have behaved very differently and ought to be ashamed.
This has nothing to doing with drinking any kool aid as you put it just looking at the info out there and not falling for all the false allegations and hysteria over her. Yet an athlete that took part in the game raped a 12 yr old and there was hardly any outrsge over that!! .

Funny how she was boxing for 8 years winning and also loosing and there was no issues till last year. After she had beaten a Russian opponent and suddenly the IBA ran a 'test' and had an issue. A Russian led and controlled association. Being suspended by the IOC over various issues.

I mean Xy DSD aside if her testosterone levels were raised that isn't really a problem many women will have higher levels than a lot of mean that aspect isn't an issue. I mean claiming she has a male advantage when she has lost matches before and many women can indeed be stronger and more powerful than men. So trying to use that argument does really wash.

Not to mention in her home country it is illegal to be gay or trans. She was born and raised female, her family photos clearly show a little girl.

Paul 19-08-2024 00:47
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36181581)
Yet an athlete that took part in the game raped a 12 yr old and there was hardly any outrsge over that
How is that relevant, did it give them a competitive advantage ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36181581)
Not to mention in her home country it is illegal to be gay or trans.
So ? Seems a good reason for them to lie about it ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36181581)
She was born and raised female, her family photos clearly show a little girl.
What does that prove. I'm sure (for example) Ellen Page was "born and raised female" - they acted in multiple female parts before messing up a season of The Umbrella Acadamy as "Elliot" page.

Chris 19-08-2024 08:21
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36181581)
This has nothing to doing with drinking any kool aid as you put it just looking at the info out there and not falling for all the false allegations and hysteria over her.
And yet even the IOC had to delete a statement in which it insisted this was ‘not a DSD issue’ (Disoerder of Sexual Development) and reissue it saying it is not a ‘trans’ issue (which nobody had in fact claimed). The IOC has seen the evidence, and enough of it has become public by now. The info is out there and is plain to see, for those who aren’t ensnared by trans ideology.

Quote:
Yet an athlete that took part in the game raped a 12 yr old and there was hardly any outrsge over that!! .
Are we really doing this :dozey: ok, fine, point by point. And the above is what we in Scotland call whitabootery. Irrelevant to the question of Khelif’s eligibility to box in the female category.

Quote:
Funny how she was boxing for 8 years winning and also loosing and there was no issues till last year. After she had beaten a Russian opponent and suddenly the IBA ran a 'test' and had an issue. A Russian led and controlled association. Being suspended by the IOC over various issues.
It is entirely possible for a bad actor to discredit their opponent by issuing facts. Yes, the Russians are proper, moustache-twirling evil. That doesn’t make Khelif an XX biological female. The published evidence says that, whatever their motives, the the WBA is telling the truth. It would be a really stupid lie because their test results exist, the IOC has seen them, Khelif’s team has seen them, and simply publishing the initial cheek swab would have been enough to disprove the WBA, had that swab rendered an XX result.

Quote:
I mean Xy DSD aside if her testosterone levels were raised that isn't really a problem many women will have higher levels than a lot of mean that aspect isn't an issue.
You’re struggling now.

The normal ranges for female and male testosterone do not overlap. Not by a country mile. Females do not, ever, have ‘raised’ testosterone to the level where it is comparable to even the most testosterone-deficient male, except where serious pathology is at issue. The serious pathology in Khelif’s case is that this individual has XY chromosomes and a disorder of sexual development meaning internal testes are present. These have caused male puberty and male testosterone levels.

Quote:
I mean claiming she has a male advantage when she has lost matches before and many women can indeed be stronger and more powerful than men. So trying to use that argument does really wash.
The issue is not whether Khelif is the most powerful person in any given boxing competition; it is whether it is fair for Khelif to compete.

Nicola Adams could beat me to a pulp in a boxing ring. It doesn’t make me a woman, or her a man.

Quote:
Not to mention in her home country it is illegal to be gay or trans. She was born and raised female, her family photos clearly show a little girl.
Nobody has claimed Khelif is gay.
Nobody has claimed Khelif is trans.
These are strawman arguments, as you well know.

It is quite common for an individual with XY chromosomes and certain DSDs to be incorrectly observed at birth and recorded female, especially in developing nations where medical staff may lack experience of rarer conditions. It is then typical for such individuals to be raised as a girl because, until male puberty kicks in, there is no reason to think anything else. Be in no doubt, however, that Khelif, Khelif’s family, and the Algerian Olympic team, all now know exactly what's going on.

Khelif deserves compassion and understanding for what must have been a traumatic adolescence. However, that compassion does not extend to creating an unfair and possibly dangerous environment for actual female boxers in competitions.

TheDaddy 19-08-2024 13:06
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36181589)
However, that compassion does not extend to creating an unfair and possibly dangerous environment for actual female boxers in competitions.
That's my problem, this isn't running, jumping or throwing, this is dangerous enough as it is without compromising saftey further

Pierre 19-08-2024 17:57
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36181589)
And yet even the IOC had to delete a statement in which it insisted this was ‘not a DSD issue’ (Disoerder of Sexual Development) and reissue it saying it is not a ‘trans’ issue (which nobody had in fact claimed). The IOC has seen the evidence, and enough of it has become public by now. The info is out there and is plain to see, for those who aren’t ensnared by trans ideology.



Are we really doing this :dozey: ok, fine, point by point. And the above is what we in Scotland call whitabootery. Irrelevant to the question of Khelif’s eligibility to box in the female category.



It is entirely possible for a bad actor to discredit their opponent by issuing facts. Yes, the Russians are proper, moustache-twirling evil. That doesn’t make Khelif an XX biological female. The published evidence says that, whatever their motives, the the WBA is telling the truth. It would be a really stupid lie because their test results exist, the IOC has seen them, Khelif’s team has seen them, and simply publishing the initial cheek swab would have been enough to disprove the WBA, had that swab rendered an XX result.



You’re struggling now.

The normal ranges for female and male testosterone do not overlap. Not by a country mile. Females do not, ever, have ‘raised’ testosterone to the level where it is comparable to even the most testosterone-deficient male, except where serious pathology is at issue. The serious pathology in Khelif’s case is that this individual has XY chromosomes and a disorder of sexual development meaning internal testes are present. These have caused male puberty and male testosterone levels.



The issue is not whether Khelif is the most powerful person in any given boxing competition; it is whether it is fair for Khelif to compete.

Nicola Adams could beat me to a pulp in a boxing ring. It doesn’t make me a woman, or her a man.



Nobody has claimed Khelif is gay.
Nobody has claimed Khelif is trans.
These are strawman arguments, as you well know.

It is quite common for an individual with XY chromosomes and certain DSDs to be incorrectly observed at birth and recorded female, especially in developing nations where medical staff may lack experience of rarer conditions. It is then typical for such individuals to be raised as a girl because, until male puberty kicks in, there is no reason to think anything else. Be in no doubt, however, that Khelif, Khelif’s family, and the Algerian Olympic team, all now know exactly what's going on.

Khelif deserves compassion and understanding for what must have been a traumatic adolescence. However, that compassion does not extend to creating an unfair and possibly dangerous environment for actual female boxers in competitions.
^^^^^^. This …..all of this.

I could’ve written it myself, probably not as eloquently.

This is not a culture war issue, it’s a fairness in sport issue, and in a contact sport a safety issue.

The IOC threshold for allowing her to compete, is what was on her passport….unbelievable.

When the IBA had already banned her.

Hugh 19-08-2024 18:43
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
I think some of the confusion arises because the IBA haven’t specified what the criteria were which she was banned, and in somewhat unusual circumstances.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...73988ffc9005db

Quote:
With roots in the 1920 Antwerp Olympic games, the IBA was at a point one of the largest governing bodies in amateur boxing. It was renamed from the AIBA in 2021, and hosts the biennial World Boxing Championships.

It was from this competition that Khelif and Yu-Ting were banned in 2023. In recent weeks, the IBA has clarified that their eligibility was decided based not on testosterone testing but a “separate and recognized test, whereby the specifics remain confidential.”

This lack of transparency has led critics to highlight allegations of corruption at senior levels of the organisation. The IBA is run by Russian president Umar Kremlev, operates largely in the country, and is backed by Russian energy corporation Gazprom.

At the 2023 World Championships, Khelif was only disqualified suddenly before her gold medal bout after defeating Russian opponent Azalia Amineva at the semi-final. Amineva’s unbeaten record was subsequently restored.

Chris 19-08-2024 19:02
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36181599)
I think some of the confusion arises because the IBA haven’t specified what the criteria were which she was banned, and in somewhat unusual circumstances.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...73988ffc9005db
If they followed a cheek swab with a visual exam of some kind, then that absolutely would remain confidential - just as nobody would describe the specifics of how they watched an athlete giving a urine sample (which they do).

Look … we are way, way past casting aspersions on what the WBA has said. the IOC has seen the results and could have stopped a PR disaster in its tracks, simply by saying the tests, which incidentally were handled by a CAS-approved lab, were not credible. They didn’t.

The IOC instead chose to ignore the tests and pursued eligibility criteria based on a marker in a passport. That’s a political, ideological choice.

jfman 19-08-2024 19:02
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
The bans had the right of appeal to the Court for Arbitration for Sport and neither Khalif nor the other one took it that far. There's the obvious privacy issue that should prevent the IBA going public, while at the same time the IOC didn't seem to be using any biological criteria at all. Invoking the Russian bogey man weakened their argument in my mind.

Organisations, inside and outside sport, were very happy to take the Russian rouble to line their own pockets for two decades. Much as many are turning to Saudi money without much consideration of human rights abuses there.

In boxing the number one issue, ahead of inclusion for transgender people which the IOC process is clearly designed for, should be the safety of all competitors. Second to that is fairness. Boxing is sub divided into weight classes for these reasons. Almost every sport divides into male and female for the second reason.

Stephen 19-08-2024 19:10
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36181599)
I think some of the confusion arises because the IBA haven’t specified what the criteria were which she was banned, and in somewhat unusual circumstances.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...73988ffc9005db
Exactly. Protecting their 'perfect' Russian. I honestly doubt there is more to it than is plainly obvious.

Many have just been making things up or believing what they read on social media without all facts and information.

Chris 19-08-2024 19:52
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36181602)
Exactly. Protecting their 'perfect' Russian. I honestly doubt there is more to it than is plainly obvious.

Many have just been making things up or believing what they read on social media without all facts and information.
Hi, instead of jumping on a post you agree with just to agree with it, I’d love it if you could have a go at answering some of the details I provided you above.

If you’re unable, not to worry. It just that it looks to me very much as if you copy/pasted a ton of stuff from TRA Xitter without attempting any critical understanding of it. Which would be a shame.

Stephen 19-08-2024 21:11
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36181603)
Hi, instead of jumping on a post you agree with just to agree with it, I’d love it if you could have a go at answering some of the details I provided you above.

If you’re unable, not to worry. It just that it looks to me very much as if you copy/pasted a ton of stuff from TRA Xitter without attempting any critical understanding of it. Which would be a shame.
Sorry to spoil your fun but I do not visit Twitter these days. It's a cesspit of right wing goons and misinformation.

Why would I want to respond when there are 3 or so folk waiting to pounce on anything I say and just claim I'm wrong.

Saying she is too strong to fight another woman also don't fly as she has been beaten by women previously and those who she fought and beat never claimed she was too strong or punching like a man.

So I'm not gonna off off some rumours and false info that doesn't sit right with how things have gone previously for her.

Chris 19-08-2024 21:18
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Ok, so, you’re just going to repeat one of the strawmen you posted earlier. So, let me repeat: it is nothing to do with an objective assessment of whether a boxer is ‘too strong’ - that would be absurd. It is everything to do with whether a boxer qualifies under the eligibility rules that always have - and always should - apply to female sports, namely that the competitor is female biological sex, thereby not having the male advantage that as a class renders elite sportswomen unable to compete with elite sportsmen.

If you’re still content to believe everything that has been said is just ‘rumours and false info’ and are unwilling to engage critically with any of it, then you’re being wilfully blind.

Stephen 19-08-2024 21:26
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Explain then how she was clearly boxing for years with no issues until all of a sudden in 2023 an issue was 'discovered' after winning a semi final bout with a Russian opponent?

Chris 19-08-2024 21:43
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36181608)
Explain then how she was clearly boxing for years with no issues until all of a sudden in 2023 an issue was 'discovered' after winning a semi final bout with a Russian opponent?
Because the test was conducted at that point? Because the WBA only conducted the test when it was politically convenient for them to do so? Who cares? It is beyond argument that the test was conducted - the IOC could simply have refuted the claim, but it did not. For that matter the CAS-approved lab that handled the test could have refuted it, as its reputation would be on the line. But it did not. The test was conducted. End of.

Seriously, did you read anything I posted earlier? Yes, the Russians are bad actors. And yes, there is sufficient information in the public domain to conclude that Khelif has returned test results showing XY chromosomes and a DSD, i.e. biologically male, incorrectly observed as female at birth. Both of these things are capable of being true at the same time. People who wish to do you harm may do so by disclosing truths you wish they hadn’t.

If you’re not getting your talking points from the usual TRA suspects on Xitter I’d love to know where exactly you have been getting them, because, by some massive coincidence, every amateurish objection you’ve raised here has already been raised, in the same way, by that constituency, for the most part while the scandal was unfolding during the Olympics.

jfman 19-08-2024 21:47
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36181608)
Explain then how she was clearly boxing for years with no issues until all of a sudden in 2023 an issue was 'discovered' after winning a semi final bout with a Russian opponent?
If the fact it was a Russian led authority acting to favour a Russian athlete (unclear at this point) found they were XY with a DSD that’s still the correct outcome despite a dubious process.

Khalif could have appealed to the internationally recognised Court for Arbitration for Sport. In every respect it would have been better if they had and undoubtedly lost. The IOC position would have been untenable.

I certainly don’t intend to jump down anyone’s throat or dismiss out of hand their position. I’m a boxing fan. People have been killed in the ring, despite increased safety protocols. You don’t have to look very far to see retired boxers with clear cognitive impairment. Which is why the IOC position - solely based on what is on your passport - is ridiculous in a sport where undergoing male puberty is such an underlying advantage.

Huxie 19-08-2024 22:22
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Should this discussion not perhaps have its own thread?

Pierre 19-08-2024 22:30
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36181605)
Why would I want to respond when there are 3 or so folk waiting to pounce on anything I say and just claim I'm wrong.
Because they think you are ?

“Why should my assertions be challenged by people that will disagree with me?”

Dear Lord. Entitled………


Quote:
Saying she is too strong to fight another woman also don't fly as she has been beaten by women previously and those who she fought and beat never claimed she was too strong or punching like a man.
Did they? All of them? You have written testimony from every one?

As pointed out by Chris, just because she has been beaten by a woman,…doesn’t make her a woman. It’s a very childish way of looking at it.

It just means that she is probably not that very good technically, and that she is most likely only there because of her inherent biological advantage.

---------- Post added at 22:30 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huxie (Post 36181612)
Should this discussion not perhaps have its own thread?
Could be a rabbit hole.

jfman 19-08-2024 22:35
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
I recommend The Real Science of Sport Podcast with Prof. Ross Tucker a South African sports scientist who has advised World Rugby on safety protocols.

Bonus Episode: Why test the sex of an athlete?
And Paris 2024: Males are about to fight in Women’s boxing.

Chris 19-08-2024 22:49
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huxie (Post 36181612)
Should this discussion not perhaps have its own thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36181613)
Could be a rabbit hole.
It probably should, and yes it could, which is why I’ve resisted starting one myself a number of times recently (notably when the Cass Review was published - a document whose significance is seismic yet whose ongoing effects are largely passing under the radar).

I’m not getting into it now but I will probably split a lot of this into a gender woo-woo thread tomorrow morning.

papa smurf 20-08-2024 08:45
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36181617)
It probably should, and yes it could, which is why I’ve resisted starting one myself a number of times recently (notably when the Cass Review was published - a document whose significance is seismic yet whose ongoing effects are largely passing under the radar).

I’m not getting into it now but I will probably split a lot of this into a gender woo-woo thread tomorrow morning.
Will it cover all 57 genders?

jfman 20-08-2024 08:55
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36181626)
Will it cover all 57 genders?
I’d like to report a hate crime against the 15 papa smurf doesn’t recognise.

;)

https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are...rs/article.htm

Chris 20-08-2024 11:06
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
This discussion is split out of the Online Safety Bill thread. It is here to discuss three main strands of the so-called gender debate which tend to get lumped together under the catch-all title ‘trans rights’ (whether they ought to or not is part of the discussion).

Main issues that are on-topic for this thread:

1. Fair treatment of individuals who have a genetic disorder (especially relevant in sports, as the opening posts in this thread demonstrate)
2. Rights, freedoms and obligations of individuals who claim to ‘identify’ as a ‘gender’ other than their natural born sex
3. Medical treatment of individuals, and especially children, who may have a condition called gender dysphoria (discussion of the Cass review and its consequences for UK health policy for example).

#NoDebate is not an option. Post away.

Jaymoss 20-08-2024 11:32
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
My youngest daughter suffers from autism and Tourette's (so she tells me anyway ) and other mental conditions ,we only talk we have not met yet. She/he/they come out to me originally as none binary and wanted to be called Max . Her/his/thems given name was Tia and she/he/they was seeing a male called Harvey. Later after finishing with him she/he/they met a guy/girl who identified as trans and then decided that she/he was also trans and now identified as a male.

So I see this all as confusion caused by her mental state and not real but it is very hard to deal with even as a distant parent. Thankfully he/she/they does not get triggered when I get it wrong

Chris 20-08-2024 11:39
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36181644)
My youngest daughter suffers from autism and Tourette's (so she tells me anyway ) and other mental conditions ,we only talk we have not met yet. She/he/they come out to me originally as none binary and wanted to be called Max . Her/his/thems given name was Tia and she/he/they was seeing a male called Harvey. Later after finishing with him she/he/they met a guy/girl who identified as trans and then decided that she/he was also trans and now identified as a male.

So I see this all as confusion caused by her mental state and not real but it is very hard to deal with even as a distant parent. Thankfully he/she/they does not get triggered when I get it wrong
NHS England agrees with you. GPs are no longer allowed to refer cases they believe may be gender dysphoria directly to gender clinics. From now on they have to refer to CAMHS first for appropriate mental health assessment. The only serious study so far done on this suggested a high correlation between apparent gender dysphoria and neurodivergence such as ASD (autistic spectrum disorder).

I believe one of the medical scandals of our time, when the history of this time is written, will turn out to be the way we allowed clinicians to sterilise and perform plastic surgery on physically healthy children when what they actually needed was appropriate mental health care.

Jaymoss 20-08-2024 11:52
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Absolutely

Hugh 20-08-2024 12:12
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36181646)
NHS England agrees with you. GPs are no longer allowed to refer cases they believe may be gender dysphoria directly to gender clinics. From now on they have to refer to CAMHS first for appropriate mental health assessment. The only serious study so far done on this suggested a high correlation between apparent gender dysphoria and neurodivergence such as ASD (autistic spectrum disorder).

I believe one of the medical scandals of our time, when the history of this time is written, will turn out to be the way we allowed clinicians to sterilise and perform plastic surgery on physically healthy children when what they actually needed was appropriate mental health care.
I thought 18 was the minimum age in the U.K. for Gender reassignment surgery?

Chris 20-08-2024 12:31
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36181649)
I thought 18 was the minimum age in the U.K. for Gender reassignment surgery?
Yeah, only the chemical sterilisation occurs prior to them turning 18, though that in itself causes serious physical changes by preventing puberty occurring. plastic surgery follows when they’ve reached the age of adult consent - though how much genuine choice a young adult has after their body is rendered child-like thanks to un-evidenced use of puberty-blocking drugs is debatable.

I think the important thing here is that we stop using euphemisms. So-called ‘Gender affirming care’ is, to me, dangerously close to child abuse of mentally fragile young people and ‘gender reassignment surgery’ in fact reassigns nothing. It is plastic surgery which only compounds a profound error of clinical care.

A woman is an adult human female. A man is an adult human male. Sex is immutable. Our health services would do better to focus on helping young people to be resilient in the face of biological reality rather than medicalising the highly contentious pseudoscience known as ‘queer theory’.

jfman 20-08-2024 12:51
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36181646)
I believe one of the medical scandals of our time, when the history of this time is written, will turn out to be the way we allowed clinicians to sterilise and perform plastic surgery on physically healthy children when what they actually needed was appropriate mental health care.
I couldn’t agree more. How organisations like Stonewall have come to infiltrate various facets of public life, policing language, presenting falsehoods as facts will absolutely be another one.

Hugh 20-08-2024 13:13
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36181651)
Yeah, only the chemical sterilisation occurs prior to them turning 18, though that in itself causes serious physical changes by preventing puberty occurring. plastic surgery follows when they’ve reached the age of adult consent - though how much genuine choice a young adult has after their body is rendered child-like thanks to un-evidenced use of puberty-blocking drugs is debatable.

I think the important thing here is that we stop using euphemisms. So-called ‘Gender affirming care’ is, to me, dangerously close to child abuse of mentally fragile young people and ‘gender reassignment surgery’ in fact reassigns nothing. It is plastic surgery which only compounds a profound error of clinical care.

A woman is an adult human female. A man is an adult human male. Sex is immutable. Our health services would do better to focus on helping young people to be resilient in the face of biological reality rather than medicalising the highly contentious pseudoscience known as ‘queer theory’.
I agree with a number of your points, but you did say

Quote:
the way we allowed clinicians to sterilise and perform plastic surgery on physically healthy children
I too, have concerns around children who believe they have gender dysmorphia being prescribed drugs, but I also believe it’s important to base arguments/positions on fact-based positions (as far as possible, due to a paucity of research in this subject), rather than on things that haven’t happened (in the U.K.).

Pierre 20-08-2024 13:48
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36181649)
I thought 18 was the minimum age in the U.K. for Gender reassignment surgery?
A bit pointless giving over 18’s puberty blockers.

Contrary to some literature, they are not “reversible” and do not just pause development.

So although “surgery” may not have occurred, the damage is already done.

Chris 20-08-2024 14:01
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36181654)
I agree with a number of your points, but you did say



I too, have concerns around children who believe they have gender dysmorphia being prescribed drugs, but I also believe it’s important to base arguments/positions on fact-based positions (as far as possible, due to a paucity of research in this subject), rather than on things that haven’t happened (in the U.K.).
Granted, plastic surgery on minors for gender ‘treatment’ doesn’t happen in the UK, however there are, for example, hundreds of documented cases of double mastectomy amongst girls aged between 12 and 17 in the USA. It is a fact-based position, though one I could have made more clearly. It is important that we don’t artificially restrict ourselves to considering only the UK because the cultural and academic forces at play here do not respect borders. Advocates and critics are heard across the Atlantic and relevant medical studies draw on cases from across Europe and the world.

RichardCoulter 20-08-2024 15:40
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Puberty blockers seem to be a good way to give them time to decide what gender they identify as, without doing anything too major that they may regret. All that would happen would be that they go through puberty later.

...unless they cause permanent damage, I really don't know.

Paul 20-08-2024 15:47
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36181664)
Puberty blockers seem to be a good way to give them time to decide what gender they identify as, without doing anything too major that they may regret. All that would happen would be that they go through puberty later.

...unless they cause permanent damage, I really don't know.
Well this suggests that might not be entirely true, or a good strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36181658)
A bit pointless giving over 18’s puberty blockers.

Contrary to some literature, they are not “reversible” and do not just pause development.

So although “surgery” may not have occurred, the damage is already done.

That said, we dont know the source of that statement, and if its actually true.

Chris 20-08-2024 16:10
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36181664)
Puberty blockers seem to be a good way to give them time to decide what gender they identify as, without doing anything too major that they may regret. All that would happen would be that they go through puberty later.

...unless they cause permanent damage, I really don't know.
They cause permanent damage.

You really, really need to read up on this Richard. They are exceptionally powerful drugs that were designed to treat prodigious puberty in young children. When used as intended, they delay puberty in children who have begun to develop too early. The drugs are withdrawn at an age when puberty is meant to start and is then allowed to progress normally.

Their use in older, often mentally vulnerable children, stopping puberty from occurring during the years it is supposed to be happening, has not been adequately tested, has potentially very serious long term side effects including sterilisation and osteoporosis. These concerns are at the heart of the review of evidence and practice in NHS England conducted earlier this year by Dr Hilary Cass and which have already resulted in several significant changes in the NHS throughout the UK, including a permanent ban on the use of puberty blockers on young people confused about their gender- a confusion the entire trans rights movement is designed to promote.

I should also add that the whole concept of children needing time to ‘decide’ what gender they are is a highly contested element of a social science - many would say pseudo-science - called queer theory, and draws on metaphysical speculation about the existence of a so-called ‘gendered soul’ which may or may not align with one’s biological sex. There has been a concerted campaign over many years to get these ideas embedded in public consciousness without any discussion or criticism, but it really cannot go unchallenged.

Pierre 20-08-2024 18:33
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
That said, we dont know the source of that statement, and if its actually true.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-medicine.html

I don’t think there’s a link to the report cited, but shouldn’t be hard to find. The problem is there hasn’t been a massive amount of research done ( which is worrying in itself if you’re willing to prescribe them)

Dr Cass also found in her report that there is very little follow up study’s done.

Most positive takes on Blockers come unsurprisingly from Pro-Trans sources of from American clinics and pharma…….because they are trying to sell you a product

jfman 20-08-2024 18:50
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
I think one of the most tragic things is those born with physical conditions that could be supported by undergoing the treatments that have been pioneered in the field will probably find it more challenging to get help because of the plethora of organisations selling them as lifestyle choices to the mentally ill.

Hugh 20-08-2024 19:12
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36181675)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-medicine.html

I don’t think there’s a link to the report cited, but shouldn’t be hard to find. The problem is there hasn’t been a massive amount of research done ( which is worrying in itself if you’re willing to prescribe them)

Dr Cass also found in her report that there is very little follow up study’s done.

Most positive takes on Blockers come unsurprisingly from Pro-Trans sources of from American clinics and pharma…….because they are trying to sell you a product
Here’s the research paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...s_and_Function

Chris 02-09-2024 09:58
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Paralympics allow an Italian man to run in 200m women’s race.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/cpvymmpyjeko

Plenty of good detail in that article that demonstrates how male physical advantage persists even if you follow up your belief that you’re a woman by taking female hormones. If Valentina Petrillo wants to race at the Paralympics then he should be racing against men, which of course he did for most of his life.

Hom3r 02-09-2024 10:58
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
I talk to my 23 year old niece who is gay, about the modern gender Identity.

To her gender neutral toilets are the norm.

I do have one issue, I feel that you should use the toilets based on your birth biology. (yes there are those born with both, but they IIRC generally choose one).

Once you have finished the relevant surgery you can use the new gender.

Wasn't there a rapist who said he identified as a woman and was put in a women's prison and he committed a crime in there.

Damien 02-09-2024 11:07
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Gender-neutral toilets have been around for a long time purely out of convenience/space anyway. Some places only have one or two toilets so make it accessible to all. I know the National Theatre bar is unisex. A bar near me also has it.

These never have urinals though which is the only point of contention. Otherwise, it's a set of private - unisex - cubicles and then a shared area for washing hands.

Chris 02-09-2024 11:49
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36182367)
I talk to my 23 year old niece who is gay, about the modern gender Identity.

To her gender neutral toilets are the norm.

I do have one issue, I feel that you should use the toilets based on your birth biology. (yes there are those born with both, but they IIRC generally choose one).

Once you have finished the relevant surgery you can use the new gender.

Wasn't there a rapist who said he identified as a woman and was put in a women's prison and he committed a crime in there.
Adam Bryson from Clydebank. Accused of two rapes. Appeared in court initially under his wife’s surname (Adam Graham), legally changed his name to Isla Bryson a year later, but was still legally recognised as a man, owing to the fact that he is one and had not applied to have his birth certificate altered.

Ended up convicted and in a women’s prison, right at the same time Nicola Sturgeon was doing the Press rounds insisting that the SNP’s ludicrous gender self-ID bill would not further enable the very thing that was happening right under her nose. Unclear from the reading I’ve quickly done here whether his birth certificate now contains the legal fiction that he is ‘female’. However here’s a photo taken outside court.

https://i2-prod.dailyrecord.co.uk/ne...S289065299.jpg

---------- Post added at 11:49 ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36182370)
Gender-neutral toilets have been around for a long time purely out of convenience/space anyway. Some places only have one or two toilets so make it accessible to all. I know the National Theatre bar is unisex. A bar near me also has it.

These never have urinals though which is the only point of contention. Otherwise, it's a set of private - unisex - cubicles and then a shared area for washing hands.
Gender neutral toilets aren’t an issue as long as they don’t contain a closed-off space where men and women mix out of public view. A door straight off a corridor marked unisex is fine (you often find these in small independent coffee shops). A men’s toilet converted to unisex by removing the urinals and adding a counter top containing free period products, as happened at my local university, is absolutely not ok. The enclosed space bakes in one of the real and present dangers posed by trans ideology, which is the erosion of safe female spaces.

At the time of the conversion, everyone I knew, and overheard, continued to talk about that room as the ‘men’s toilet’. There was a women’s one nearby, although not right next door. More recently however I have gone in there and had to exchange a very awkward smile with a lone woman standing at the mirror. *I* feel awkward because I know that a young woman alone in a secluded space with an unknown man is vulnerable. I am sure she feels worse. This is the sort of thing that this corrosive ideology has enabled by taking the (reasonable, democratic) idea that you can dress, and perceive, yourself however you want, to the (dangerous) idea that everyone else has to make way for you at the expense of their own comfort, safety and right to think and speak freely.

ianch99 02-09-2024 15:31
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
I don't see a problem with Gender-neutral toilets as a solution. It removes the obvious need to implicitly assert your F/M gender when you are using them. We have just come back from Amsterdam and the toilets in the National Opera House just had urinal and stall symbols on the doors so you chose what met your needs at the time. Seems to work ok ...

nomadking 02-09-2024 16:24
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Sports are separated by physicality, whether by biological sex or age. Once you have gained muscle mass(from biology or illegal steroids), you can retain it by training more. Any gain from being male or taking drugs, is still there.

Toilets and changing rooms are a bit more complicated. The underlying basis doesn't really involve biological sex or any gender ideology. The underlying basis is what you find sexually attractive, which historically has been on the simple premise of biological sex.

Chris 19-02-2025 07:43
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
The wheels are slowly starting to come off the gender clown car in Scotland in the aftermath of some jaw-dropping testimony at an industrial tribunal in Dundee. A nurse is claiming harassment against a doctor and NHS Fife. The doctor is a man who LARPs as a woman (Dr “Beth” Upton). The nurse, Sandie Peggie, was suspended after telling him he should not be using the women’s changing room. At the tribunal the doctor claimed that he is a ‘biological female’ and that the concept of biological sex is a ‘nebulous dog-whistle’ for which there is no real definition.

It has only had a little national news coverage but it has been covered fully enough in the media in Scotland to open a few eyes. Yesterday Scottish Labour disavowed the Gender Recognition Reform Act (which would have introduced Gender self-ID, had the UK Supreme Court not struck it down for interfering with the UK Human Rights Act), claiming they would not have voted for it had they known then what they know now. What they claim to know now, but did not know then, was what campaigners were yelling at them all along. If you tell people they can identify into a category, the injustice suffered by Sandie Peggie and many others is inevitably what follows.

Further, MSPs have been trying this week to get the SNP government to make some sort of statement on all this, but the parliament’s presiding officer - an SNP politician - has been blocking them, over and over again.

Sadly what has been happening in Scotland is the SNP/Green obsession with genderism, led by Nicola Sturgeon and, frankly, aided and abetted by Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib Dems, has become de-facto public sector policy in Scotland despite the legislation that was to underpin it being struck down. I bet Nurse Peggie isn’t the only woman being institutionally harassed for refusing to pretend a man is a woman just because he says he is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgm17y4e3zro

Stephen 19-02-2025 09:31
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
It wasn't as plain and simple as she said Doctor Upton shouldn't be there.

She said Dr Upton made her feel uncomfortable and then compared the transgender woman to the trans criminal that was in a woman's prison. I'm sure there was other occasions mentioned too.

It was the Scottish Conservative party that had the issues yesterday not Labour
Quote:
The Tories called for the Scottish government to provide clarity on the issue amid an ongoing employment tribunal
The SNP government did issues a statement
Quote:
The government later issued a statement saying it supports provisions under the Equality Act 2010 which allow for trans people to be excluded from some spaces when its it a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

Chris 19-02-2025 09:42
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36191539)
It wasn't as plain and simple as she said Doctor Upton shouldn't be there.

She said Dr Upton made her feel uncomfortable and then compared the transgender woman to the trans criminal that was in a woman's prison. I'm sure there was other occasions mentioned too.

It was the Scottish Conservative party that had the issues yesterday not Labour


The SNP government did issues a statement
Dr Upton shouldn’t be there - the workplace health and safety regulations 1992 specify there should be separate facilities for men and women. Dr Upton is a man. He cannot self-ID into women’s spaces, but NHS Fife seems to have set that as its policy (which is against the law) and then suspended the nurse for expressing her legally held and expressed views (contra the Equality Act).

The tribunal has heard damning testimony that Upton was taking notes on his phone of every time the nurse left the changing room without acknowledging him (as evidence that she had a problem with him) before making a complaint when she did eventually confront him. She was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t. And when she did it was because she believed she was having a menstrual flood - exactly the sort of thing you don’t want to have to deal with in the presence of a man who had no legal right to be there. Furthermore the tribunal has heard that Upton spent weeks consulting with the BMA trying to find out what he would have to accuse the nurse of to get her suspended, the complaint about the changing room not having done the trick. He then accused her of compromising patient safety, an allegation for which the evidence is non-existent.

Incidentally, the case is exactly the same as the Isla Bryson case. Bryson was a man accessing female-only spaces (a women’s prison) on the basis of self-ID’ing as a woman. Theodore “Beth” Upton is a man accessing female-only spaces (a female changin room in a hospital) on the basis of self-ID’ing as a woman. In both cases, these men were indulged by a Scottish public sector body taking its steer from the SNP instead of the law.

The underlying problem is that the SNP, aided and abetted by the Scottish Greens, have infused self-ID into public sector policy in Scotland even though their self-ID law was ruled to breach the UK law. And that has opened the door for vexatious behaviour by narcissists like Theodore “Beth” Upton, a man who LARPs as a woman.

nomadking 19-02-2025 09:49
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
i would like to think that if I was that way inclined, I would be more considerate of others.

Chris 19-02-2025 09:55
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36191541)
i would like to think that if I was that way inclined, I would be more considerate of others.
Transvestitism is not the problem, per se. We live in a mature democracy, so of course people should wear what they want, and if they want to think they’re a woman and perform regressive female stereotypes in public, well, fine, I guess.

The problem is that genderism has arrived at the point where it is no longer satisfied with acceptance of the internal feelings of those it has ensnared. It demands fealty from all of us to the unfalsifiable claim that ’trans women are women’ and ‘trans men are men’ - with all the attendant risks those ridiculous claims bring with them, most particularly for women and children.

Chris 20-03-2025 15:00
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Government commissions study and discovers the Pope is indeed Catholic, and bears do indeed defecate beneath arboreal cover.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvge4jyz9dyo

Quote:
Cancer screenings have been missed and criminal convictions overlooked because of how data is collected about people's biological sex and gender identity, an independent review found.
The review, led by Prof Alice Sullivan, outlined the risks of conflating biological sex and gender when it comes to clinical care, sex-specific cancer screening and safeguarding.
Prof Sullivan, a professor of sociology at University College London, urged public bodies to collect data on both sex and gender identity by default "across the board" to ensure it is accurate.
Meanwhile idiots like Dr “Beth” Upton, respondent in the Sandie Peggie case also involving NHS Fife, took to the witness stand last month to insist that because he wears a dress and grew out his hair, he is in fact a “biological woman”. (Not a word of a lie, he believes that because he [thinks he] is a woman, and he is biological, this makes him a biological woman - and this fool actually has a medical degree and is on the loose in A&E in a Scottish hospital).

Remember the days when nobody was afraid to call out nonsense for what it is, and now we have to commission expensive reports like this one, and the even more expensive and searching Cass Review, in order to put the lid back on it? We have lost our collective mind.

Hom3r 20-03-2025 15:42
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Professor Winston (now Baron), said that there are biological genders, and these cannot be changed.

he got death threats.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ns-debate.html

Quote:
'You CAN'T change your sex': Fertility expert Professor Robert Winston says 'mutilating ourselves' changes gender but 'we cannot escape our genetics' - after Church of England said it didn't have a definition of 'woman'

Maggy 20-03-2025 16:36
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193080)
Government commissions study and discovers the Pope is indeed Catholic, and bears do indeed defecate beneath arboreal cover.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvge4jyz9dyo



Meanwhile idiots like Dr “Beth” Upton, respondent in the Sandie Peggie case also involving NHS Fife, took to the witness stand last month to insist that because he wears a dress and grew out his hair, he is in fact a “biological woman”. (Not a word of a lie, he believes that because he [thinks he] is a woman, and he is biological, this makes him a biological woman - and this fool actually has a medical degree and is on the loose in A&E in a Scottish hospital).

Remember the days when nobody was afraid to call out nonsense for what it is, and now we have to commission expensive reports like this one, and the even more expensive and searching Cass Review, in order to put the lid back on it? We have lost our collective mind.
:D:D:D

tweetiepooh 21-03-2025 10:12
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36182377)
I don't see a problem with Gender-neutral toilets as a solution. It removes the obvious need to implicitly assert your F/M gender when you are using them. We have just come back from Amsterdam and the toilets in the National Opera House just had urinal and stall symbols on the doors so you chose what met your needs at the time. Seems to work ok ...
Gender neutral toilets, depending on the layout, are a real pain if like me you need to catheterise yourself. I try to use the wheel-chair accessible units as even male toilets can be interesting.

Chris 21-03-2025 11:36
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36193107)
Gender neutral toilets, depending on the layout, are a real pain if like me you need to catheterise yourself. I try to use the wheel-chair accessible units as even male toilets can be interesting.
Gender neutral toilets are not safe for women unless they are a single, lockable room containing all necessary facilities (toilet, sink, dryer, mirror), whose door is straight off an open public space. Where you see those in the UK they generally are all-in-one male/female/accessible rooms, although as I’m not looking for accessible facilities I admit I may not notice where those are missing.

The important nuance here that must not be lost is that a single public restroom where, behind a door, there is a communal handwashing area and beyond that, a line of unisex cubicles, is not a safe space for women and girls, even if the cubicle door/wall extends from floor to ceiling. It permits men to mingle with women and to hang around outside their cubicle, away from public view.

*A* man may well not be a risk - I’m not, I’m sure you’re not - but men, as a category, are most definitely a risk to women in statistical terms. It is why we have had toilets segregated by sex ever since the Victorians began accepting the need for public conveniences for women.

And, as so-called ‘transwomen’ are in fact men, the same statistical rules apply. They are at least as much of a risk, and in fact the numbers of trans-identifying men in UK prisons for sex crimes suggests the risk may actually be higher.

Maggy 21-03-2025 11:55
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193109)
Gender neutral toilets are not safe for women unless they are a single, lockable room containing all necessary facilities (toilet, sink, dryer, mirror), whose door is straight off an open public space. Where you see those in the UK they generally are all-in-one male/female/accessible rooms, although as I’m not looking for accessible facilities I admit I may not notice where those are missing.

The important nuance here that must not be lost is that a single public restroom where, behind a door, there is a communal handwashing area and beyond that, a line of unisex cubicles, is not a safe space for women and girls, even if the cubicle door/wall extends from floor to ceiling. It permits men to mingle with women and to hang around outside their cubicle, away from public view.

*A* man may well not be a risk - I’m not, I’m sure you’re not - but men, as a category, are most definitely a risk to women in statistical terms. It is why we have had toilets segregated by sex ever since the Victorians began accepting the need for public conveniences for women.

And, as so-called ‘transwomen’ are in fact men, the same statistical rules apply. They are at least as much of a risk, and in fact the numbers of trans-identifying men in UK prisons for sex crimes suggests the risk may actually be higher.
:clap::clap::clap:

jfman 26-03-2025 10:42
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...kathleen-stock

University of Sussex fined over failure to uphold freedom of speech in relation to gender woo woo.

Chris 26-03-2025 17:15
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Indeed. And the university’s vice-chancellor has gone off on one and said some very inadvisable things to the FT last night - as some commentators have pointed out, she wasn’t in office when all this went down, she had the opportunity to just absorb it and move on as there was no risk to her personal reputation, but instead she has decided to make the rather implausible claim that the university now can’t protect people from hurty words, when the whole case springs from their refusal to protect Prof Kathleen Stock from outright intimidation which led to her being hounded out of her job, all for the dreadful crime of believing that sex is real and matters.

She also seems to be totally unaware of the more than 30 (and rising) employment tribunals which have examined cases not dissimilar to this, every one of which has found for the claimant against their (former) employer.

Sephiroth 01-04-2025 13:32
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Just so you know where I stand (having ignored CF for several months), there are just two biological genders, as per Trump's pronouncement. Biological men should be forbidden access to female facilities and just as certainly not be allowed to participate in female sports. Obviously.

Genuine cases of gender dis-whatsit do need to be offered options that do not conflict with the above.

papa smurf 01-04-2025 13:36
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36193672)
Just so you know where I stand (having ignored CF for several months), there are just two biological genders, as per Trump's pronouncement. Biological men should be forbidden access to female facilities and just as certainly not be allowed to participate in female sports. Obviously.

Genuine cases of gender dis-whatsit do need to be offered options that do not conflict with the above.
That should get at least 30 police officers kicking your door in and hauling you off to the pokey :)

Sephiroth 01-04-2025 13:47
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36193673)
That should get at least 30 police officers kicking your door in and hauling you off to the pokey :)
Six will do, and two police cars.

ianch99 01-04-2025 14:41
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36193672)
Just so you know where I stand (having ignored CF for several months), there are just two biological genders, as per Trump's pronouncement. Biological men should be forbidden access to female facilities and just as certainly not be allowed to participate in female sports. Obviously.

Genuine cases of gender dis-whatsit do need to be offered options that do not conflict with the above.
You are conflating two different terms: gender & sex. They are not the same: gender is a societal/social construct and sex is a biological definition.

Chris 01-04-2025 14:55
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193677)
You are conflating two different terms: gender & sex. They are not the same: gender is a societal/social construct and sex is a biological definition.
^ This. Though his error isn’t surprising. Political queer theory deliberately muddies definitions of words, making it difficult to define or discuss with a common frame of reference and allowing queer assertions to flourish by default.

I’ve become more and more hardline on this as I’ve read and listened to the debate over the past several months. I am no longer willing to allow that ‘gender’ as a construct even exists. Those who like to witter on about their ‘gender identity’ invariably do so by using circular definitions with reference to their entirely internal sense of self. As a social construct, it is very poorly constructed indeed. All they are really doing is dissecting and venerating aspects of their personality. We all have one of those and some are more pleasant to be in a room with than others.

I hold that everybody has a sex which is immutable and which is of primary importance. And everybody has a personality, which is to be cherished and valued as part of our shared experience of humanity, but nobody has an absolute right to have accommodations made for specific aspects of their own personality.

Once I might have gone along with calling a bloke in a dress ‘she’ just for a quiet life. However I now better understand what seemingly simple accommodations like that have done - they permitted genderists to take that ground and then move on to demand more, and now we are where we are vis a vis universities, NHS trusts and other employers getting fined/held liable for squillions, mostly of public (i.e. our) money, because they have been making unlawful accommodations for loud, often obnoxious, and almost invariably male, transvestites.

Jaymoss 01-04-2025 15:53
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
There are males females those with a genetic physical issue ie intersex and then there are mentally ill. This is it end of will not accept anything else as fact but will accept those with the issues because they are humans and who am I to judge .

Sephiroth 01-04-2025 16:00
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193677)
You are conflating two different terms: gender & sex. They are not the same: gender is a societal/social construct and sex is a biological definition.
No I wasn't. I made it clear that in my opinion, biological sex governs. This "gender" stuff must not be allowed to cross the line where women's facilities are concerned. Protection for biological females is my motivation.

Chris 01-04-2025 16:14
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36193681)
No I wasn't. I made it clear that in my opinion, biological sex governs. This "gender" stuff must not be allowed to cross the line where women's facilities are concerned. Protection for biological females is my motivation.
Actually you didn’t - you used the phrase “two biological genders” which conflates the terms “gender” and “sex”, and you didn’t use the word “sex” at all. Granted, your qualifying term “biological” meant it was fairly clear what you actually meant, but I believe it is increasingly important that we use extremely precise language in this area to counteract the deliberate muddying of it by genderists. There was once a time when you could assume the two terms, when used in everyday English, were synonymous, but no longer. IMO the word “gender” is best avoided altogether, except perhaps when discussing languages that assign gendered parts of speech to inanimate objects.

Sephiroth 01-04-2025 16:20
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193683)
Actually you didn’t - you used the phrase “two biological genders” which conflates the terms “gender” and “sex”, and you didn’t use the word “sex” at all. Granted, your qualifying term “biological” meant it was fairly clear what you actually meant, but I believe it is increasingly important that we use extremely precise language in this area to counteract the deliberate muddying of it by genderists. There was once a time when you could assume the two terms, when used in everyday English, were synonymous, but no longer. IMO the word “gender” is best avoided altogether, except perhaps when discussing languages that assign gendered parts of speech to inanimate objects.
I understand your point, but I was brought up to understand the equivalence of gender/sex.

The separation of the two terms is a modern confection to suit certain social/mental situations that really ought to be more separately named.

Chris 01-04-2025 16:25
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36193684)
I understand your point, but I was brought up to understand the equivalence of gender/sex.

The separation of the two terms is a modern confection to suit certain social/mental situations that really ought to be more separately named.
And I agree, however at this stage in the game that’s a bit like insisting ‘gay’ means ‘happy’. Language changes over time, and usually that’s an organic process. But in this case there has been a deliberate, well-concealed political-social movement behind it, and it has sought to confuse as much as to redefine the meanings of words.

For my part, I find that if I ever were to attempt to construct a sentence using the word “gender”, I know exactly how a certain section of the population would construe that and I prefer to give them no succour. Hence my position is that nobody has a gender identity; everybody has a sex (which is binary) and a personality (which is multi-faceted).

Pierre 01-04-2025 21:31
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193677)
You are conflating two different terms: gender & sex. They are not the same: gender is a societal/social construct and sex is a biological definition.
No, that’s a recent revision of what these words mean.

Up until 5 mins ago, sex and gender were the same thing.

Given the madness, though, I’m happy to relinquish gender to the lunatics. They can have it and it can mean whatever they want.

I’ll hold onto sex, as that is immutable.

Jaymoss 02-04-2025 00:43
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36193692)
No, that’s a recent revision of what these words mean.

.
They did the same with racism and that really grinds my gears . How somehow a Caucasian can be racist to another Caucasian bewilders me but that is another story I guess and if a thread it would last 5 minutes max

ianch99 02-04-2025 14:44
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
This is an interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history. This is also worth reading: https://www.petertatchellfoundation....ns-liberation/

As in many recent areas of disagreement, the lack of nuance is evident. There are many people who strongly believe that they are mis-gendered and go through tremendous personal trauma, counselling, medical treatments and invasive surgery to achieve the gender they fundamentally believe they belong to. These people are not "mental".

Society should be able to accommodate these people and, at the same time, ensure safeguarding for the small number of cases where security concerns are raised. You can argue that, in the past, homosexually was treated in the same way: homosexuality was considered an "unnatural" act, leading to punishments ranging from fines and imprisonment to public shaming and even death. Yet, today, it is part of mainstream society.

Jaymoss 02-04-2025 14:57
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193735)
This is an interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history. This is also worth reading: https://www.petertatchellfoundation....ns-liberation/

As in many recent areas of disagreement, the lack of nuance is evident. There are many people who strongly believe that they are mis-gendered and go through tremendous personal trauma, counselling, medical treatments and invasive surgery to achieve the gender they fundamentally believe they belong to. These people are not "mental".

Society should be able to accommodate these people and, at the same time, ensure safeguarding for the small number of cases where security concerns are raised. You can argue that, in the past, homosexually was treated in the same way: homosexuality was considered an "unnatural" act, leading to punishments ranging from fines and imprisonment to public shaming and even death. Yet, today, it is part of mainstream society.
That logic is dangerous.
Delusion is a mental illness so how can you say those who strongly believe that they are mis-gendered are not deluded and all that trauma a result of the mental illness.

What comes next down Woke Street? Understanding of Paedophiles?

Pierre 02-04-2025 15:15
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193735)

As in many recent areas of disagreement, the lack of nuance is evident. There are many people who strongly believe that they are mis-gendered and go through tremendous personal trauma, counselling, medical treatments and invasive surgery to achieve the gender they fundamentally believe they belong to. These people are not "mental".
They're not "mental" but they have a psychological disorder, that they should receive support and counselling for to try and navigate their way through it.

They should not be told and /or affirmed, off the bat, that yes you are definitely in the wrong body...oh and here's a load of drugs that will stop your sexual development, and here's a load of hormones that will change your body chemistry and as a finale, here's some surgery so we can irreversibly mutilate your body.

If someone with anorexia came into a doctors/ psychiatrists office, do you think the first words out their mouths would be "oh yes, you're definitely too fat, I suugest you lose more weight"?

Chris 02-04-2025 16:09
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193735)
This is an interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history. This is also worth reading: https://www.petertatchellfoundation....ns-liberation/

As in many recent areas of disagreement, the lack of nuance is evident. There are many people who strongly believe that they are mis-gendered and go through tremendous personal trauma, counselling, medical treatments and invasive surgery to achieve the gender they fundamentally believe they belong to. These people are not "mental".

Society should be able to accommodate these people and, at the same time, ensure safeguarding for the small number of cases where security concerns are raised. You can argue that, in the past, homosexually was treated in the same way: homosexuality was considered an "unnatural" act, leading to punishments ranging from fines and imprisonment to public shaming and even death. Yet, today, it is part of mainstream society.
Tatchell’s piece is the usual mix of unevidenced assertions, contradictions and circular definitions.

To assert the ‘facts’ of sexual attraction and so-called gender identity side by side is ludicrous. You can observe sexual attraction, and therefore sexual orientation, in a laboratory. It has a powerful physiological component that is measurable. You can do no such thing vis a vis ‘gender identity’ which is an entirely internal, self-referencing psychological state riven with contradictions and circularity (ask a trans activist to define the word ‘woman’ without reference to the word ‘woman’ … it’s entertaining).

There is no credible evidence for the existence of the ‘trans brain’. No serious study has ever shown any such thing. It is not gender-critical commentators who are trying to impose regressive sexual stereotypes, it is the trans community. Anyone who has ever seen a trans-identifying male dress as a woman knows that regressive stereotypes of womanhood are very much a trans trait. And his so-called solutions to the problems of males in the female prison estate and other sensitive female-only spaces are just exercises in special pleading. It doesn’t matter how carefully you assess a man who wants to attend a women-only safe space, the process of assessment in and of itself embeds and normalises the idea that men should be allowed to identify themselves into those spaces by default, over-and above the objection of women who do not want them there simply because they are men.

I’m also curious what published evidence there is that Tatchell was campaigning on these issues 50 years ago. I’ve never seen any. I have on the other hand seen evidence in print of his past advocacy for pedophilia. So he’s not someone whose views on societal norms I’d instinctively trust.

I could go on, but I shall take a deep breath and refrain. For now. :D

jfman 02-04-2025 16:24
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193735)
This is an interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history. This is also worth reading: https://www.petertatchellfoundation....ns-liberation/

As in many recent areas of disagreement, the lack of nuance is evident. There are many people who strongly believe that they are mis-gendered and go through tremendous personal trauma, counselling, medical treatments and invasive surgery to achieve the gender they fundamentally believe they belong to. These people are not "mental".

Society should be able to accommodate these people and, at the same time, ensure safeguarding for the small number of cases where security concerns are raised. You can argue that, in the past, homosexually was treated in the same way: homosexuality was considered an "unnatural" act, leading to punishments ranging from fines and imprisonment to public shaming and even death. Yet, today, it is part of mainstream society.
A man who thinks he shouldn’t have a penis is exactly the same amount of mentally ill as someone who wants to amputate their limbs due to distress.

Thinking he shouldn’t have a penis AND that should give him a right to women’s only spaces begs the question of why women should be inconvenienced rather than him by undressing around people they would prefer not to.

In among all this I do genuinely feel sorry for the people with disorders of sex development (DSD) who are having their interests overtaken by men with a fetish at best and misogynists at worst.

ianch99 02-04-2025 22:12
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193744)
Tatchell’s piece is the usual mix of unevidenced assertions, contradictions and circular definitions.

To assert the ‘facts’ of sexual attraction and so-called gender identity side by side is ludicrous. You can observe sexual attraction, and therefore sexual orientation, in a laboratory. It has a powerful physiological component that is measurable. You can do no such thing vis a vis ‘gender identity’ which is an entirely internal, self-referencing psychological state riven with contradictions and circularity (ask a trans activist to define the word ‘woman’ without reference to the word ‘woman’ … it’s entertaining).

There is no credible evidence for the existence of the ‘trans brain’. No serious study has ever shown any such thing. It is not gender-critical commentators who are trying to impose regressive sexual stereotypes, it is the trans community. Anyone who has ever seen a trans-identifying male dress as a woman knows that regressive stereotypes of womanhood are very much a trans trait. And his so-called solutions to the problems of males in the female prison estate and other sensitive female-only spaces are just exercises in special pleading. It doesn’t matter how carefully you assess a man who wants to attend a women-only safe space, the process of assessment in and of itself embeds and normalises the idea that men should be allowed to identify themselves into those spaces by default, over-and above the objection of women who do not want them there simply because they are men.

I’m also curious what published evidence there is that Tatchell was campaigning on these issues 50 years ago. I’ve never seen any. I have on the other hand seen evidence in print of his past advocacy for pedophilia. So he’s not someone whose views on societal norms I’d instinctively trust.

I could go on, but I shall take a deep breath and refrain. For now. :D
And yet a trans women who is, from a physical and presentational perspective, conformant to a broad definition of a women is only a threat because men who object to trans gender identities say so.

Some recent polling suggest you are at odds with wider society:

Landmark study shows Britons’ support for trans equality

Quote:
A landmark study has found that the British public are not opposed to trans equality, with a quarter of those polled knowing someone who is trans, rising to one in two among Gen Z respondents.

The new research published Thursday, which is thought to be the most detailed UK study of public attitudes towards trans people to date, surveyed more than 5,000 people to ascertain opinion on what is often portrayed as a deeply divisive and contentious subject.

More in Common, an international research organisation, found that nearly half of those polled (46 per cent) agreed with the statement that “a trans man is a man and a trans woman is a woman”, compared with 32 per cent who disagreed and 22 per cent who said they didn’t know, with agreement highest among younger generations.
You have to start to examine what the underlying reasons are that fuel such a hatred of trans identity. They will be starting on homosexuality next ...

jfman 02-04-2025 22:21
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
We will see what future generations say when the social contagion has passed, and younger minds are no longer are habitually infected by the Stonewall virus. The medical harm done to those unable to provide adult consent will be a future scandal on the scale of thalidomide.

A homosexual isn't trying to force others to deny objective reality, or change the law to demand it to be so. A friend of mine - a gay man - sees no common cause with trans activists. He's just a bloke who likes other blokes. That's not the same as a bloke demanding the right to undress in front of women because of mental illness, or that large swathes of organisations break the law by allowing it.

Unfortunately - and I wish I could remember who said this online to credit them with it - we have parents who have committed serious abuses of their children by indulging this fad and those will be like the Japanese soldiers on Pacific islands in the 1970s still fighting the war. The alternative is to face up to it and that won't happen.

Sephiroth 02-04-2025 22:44
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193767)
And yet a trans women who is, from a physical and presentational perspective, conformant to a broad definition of a women is only a threat because men who object to trans gender identities say so.

Some recent polling suggest you are at odds with wider society:

Landmark study shows Britons’ support for trans equality


You have to start to examine what the underlying reasons are that fuel such a hatred of trans identity. They will be starting on homosexuality next ...
I had to read the highlighted paragraph twice. By "trans woman" I've deduced that you mean a biological man. But then you go on to say "... is only a threat because men who object to trans-gender ideology say so".

Unless I've misunderstood you, surely it's the women in changing rooms who are terrified of fakes with penises pretending to be women?

Paul 02-04-2025 23:01
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
"are not opposed to trans equality" is not quite the same as supporting it.

I wonder how many of those asked even know what a "Trans Man" or "Trans Woman" is - did they clearly define them first ?

Chris 03-04-2025 09:27
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193767)
And yet a trans women who is, from a physical and presentational perspective, conformant to a broad definition of a women is only a threat because men who object to trans gender identities say so.
Untrue. Plenty of women say so - notably, those women whose employers have been insisting they disrobe in front of them. You can’t have failed to notice the ongoing court cases of the Darlington nurses, Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife and Dr “Beth” Upton, or the whopping great fine issued against Sussex University for failing to uphold Prof. Kathleen Stock’s academic freedom to be gender critical? All women, all going to court to protect their rights, and in the cases of the nurses, all of them doing so because on principle it is a violation of the safety and dignity of women to have to share changing facilities with men, regardless of the nature of the men concerned.

There is no such thing as a trans woman. It is impossible for a man to become a woman, unless you’re suggesting that dressing like a woman makes you one, which would be highly mysoginistic and regressive of you. What there are, are trans-identifying males. And they are not women.

Let’s not forget that in the 1970s the Black and White Minstrel Show was considered to be fine family entertainment. Now, white people dressing up and performing in blackface is considered to be racist and thoroughly unacceptable. I confidently predict that a generation from now, society will look on this era when we tolerated men in womanface with equal dismay.

Quote:
Some recent polling suggest you are at odds with wider society:

Landmark study shows Britons’ support for trans equality

You have to start to examine what the underlying reasons are that fuel such a hatred of trans identity. They will be starting on homosexuality next ...
You might want to have a quick gander at the LGB Alliance - https://lgballiance.org.uk/ - a campaign group which stands on the principle that same sex attraction, being biological in nature, is fundamentally different than trans issues and argues they ought to be treated separately. Indeed, they argue that those parts of the trans lobby that insist a gay man or a lesbian woman should be happy to date a trans-identifying individual are being homophobic in doing so.

This last point illustrates your problem quite neatly. Of course the survey suggests people are happy with the idea of trans equality. If you go out and ask people “do you think we should try to be kind to everyone” of course people are going to say yes.

It is only when you tease out the implications of what trans activists want, in terms of kindness, that opinion turns against them. Kindness does not extend to violation of single-sex safe spaces. It does not extend to telling a lesbian woman that she is a bad person for not wanting to date a man in a dress.

Pierre 03-04-2025 10:32
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193767)
And yet a trans women who is, from a physical and presentational perspective, conformant to a broad definition of a women
Define woman?

A man who looks, usually marginally, like a woman, is not a definition of woman, that's laughable.

Jaymoss 03-04-2025 12:40
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Natural born women are the ones threatened by pretend women with penises invading their private places. A natural born man is a lot less likely to bothered by a pretend man with a vagina. At least if a pretend man with a she wee stands next to me at a urinal I will be bigger than them that hardly ever happens lmao

Sephiroth 03-04-2025 12:44
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36193798)
Natural born women are the ones threatened by pretend women with penises invading their private places. A natural born man is a lot less likely to bothered by a pretend man with a vagina. At least if a pretend man with a she wee stands next to me at a urinal I will be bigger than them that hardly ever happens lmao
Perfectly put.

mrmistoffelees 03-04-2025 12:54
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36193801)
Perfectly put.
Is it though ? The implication as I read it is that ‘all pretend females with a penis’ represent a threat to all ‘natural women’

If my understanding is correct that can only mean one of two things

‘All trans women represent a threat to women’
‘All men represent a threat to women’

I’ve got a good friend who is trans male to female and I’d love to put her in a room with you whilst some of you talk the way you do on the issue, you would be picking your teeth up from the floor in seconds

Chris 03-04-2025 13:23
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36193802)
Is it though ? The implication as I read it is that ‘all pretend females with a penis’ represent a threat to all ‘natural women’

If my understanding is correct that can only mean one of two things

‘All trans women represent a threat to women’
‘All men represent a threat to women’

I’ve got a good friend who is trans male to female and I’d love to put her in a room with you whilst some of you talk the way you do on the issue, you would be picking your teeth up from the floor in seconds
Men, as a class, are stronger and more prone to violence than women, as a class. Men, as a class, pose a risk to women. It is for the dignity and the safety of, and fairness towards, women that we provide segregated spaces for them: toilets, trauma care, prisons, sports. As someone who says they are trans and claims to be a woman is actually still a man, all the above applies.

All trans-identifying males are a risk to women on the same basis as all non-trans-identifying males, except with the aggravating factor that non-trans-identifying males are not routinely arguing for the default right to access female safe spaces.

And your friend is not a woman of any kind, nor is it correct to refer to them in the third person as “she”. He is a man, regardless of how he sees himself and regardless of what he has told you. He was born male, he is male, he will die male. He is male, therefore he is a man, and he cannot be an woman, because a woman is an adult human female. And if he is liable to punch people’s teeth out for saying so - well that’s very male behaviour isn’t it.

I have, and will continue to, to discuss these issues, face to face, politely but insistently, with trans identifying individuals of my acquaintance, of which there are several.

Sephiroth 03-04-2025 14:44
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36193802)
Is it though ? The implication as I read it is that ‘all pretend females with a penis’ represent a threat to all ‘natural women’

If my understanding is correct that can only mean one of two things

‘All trans women represent a threat to women’
‘All men represent a threat to women’

I’ve got a good friend who is trans male to female and I’d love to put her in a room with you whilst some of you talk the way you do on the issue, you would be picking your teeth up from the floor in seconds
That's stretching it beyond safe bounds.

I accept that the conversation, by not acknowledging genuine trans cases (Male-->Female), seems to deprecate said genuine cases. But we are not that harsh nor unreasonable. The real issue here is about men with appendages that are either perverts or make women uncomfortable when the biological man undresses.

There is surgery available for genuine M-F cases.

papa smurf 03-04-2025 15:05
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36193802)
Is it though ? The implication as I read it is that ‘all pretend females with a penis’ represent a threat to all ‘natural women’

If my understanding is correct that can only mean one of two things

‘All trans women represent a threat to women’
‘All men represent a threat to women’

I’ve got a good friend who is trans male to female and I’d love to put her in a room with you whilst some of you talk the way you do on the issue, you would be picking your teeth up from the floor in seconds
presumably when your false teeth fall out through laughing

Chris 03-04-2025 15:24
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36193806)
That's stretching it beyond safe bounds.

I accept that the conversation, by not acknowledging genuine trans cases (Male-->Female), seems to deprecate said genuine cases. But we are not that harsh nor unreasonable. The real issue here is about men with appendages that are either perverts or make women uncomfortable when the biological man undresses.

There is surgery available for genuine M-F cases.
There are no genuine male - female cases, or vice versa. Male and female are biological categories. Biology is immutable. This is the same point I was making the other day vis a vis your use of the phrase “biological gender.” Activist language has made it deliberately difficult to discuss these issues clearly and we must be exceptionally precise in what we mean in order to combat it.

Someone who genuinely believes that they are in the ‘wrong body’ has a psychological illness exactly the same as people who self harm, or people with anorexia. It is a disordered belief. It *might* - though I am far from convinced - be appropriate treatment to surgically alter someone so they resemble the opposite sex, but years ago, even when we used to erroneously call such operations a “sex change”, those undergoing them had to sign a form declaring that they understood they would not actually change sex. Today, surgically altering someone who has a psychological disorder that tells them they are in the ‘wrong body’ does not cure anything because surgery cannot, fundamentally, give them the ‘right body’.

mrmistoffelees 03-04-2025 16:06
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193804)
Men, as a class, are stronger and more prone to violence than women, as a class. Men, as a class, pose a risk to women. It is for the dignity and the safety of, and fairness towards, women that we provide segregated spaces for them: toilets, trauma care, prisons, sports. As someone who says they are trans and claims to be a woman is actually still a man, all the above applies.

All trans-identifying males are a risk to women on the same basis as all non-trans-identifying males, except with the aggravating factor that non-trans-identifying males are not routinely arguing for the default right to access female safe spaces.

And your friend is not a woman of any kind, nor is it correct to refer to them in the third person as “she”. He is a man, regardless of how he sees himself and regardless of what he has told you. He was born male, he is male, he will die male. He is male, therefore he is a man, and he cannot be an woman, because a woman is an adult human female. And if he is liable to punch people’s teeth out for saying so - well that’s very male behaviour isn’t it.

I have, and will continue to, to discuss these issues, face to face, politely but insistently, with trans identifying individuals of my acquaintance, of which there are several.
Perhaps reread what I wrote, I said some not all in reference to the way people are speaking on the issue. Those who can speak to the issues with eloquence and politeness whilst expressing their views such as yourself would be fine……

jfman 03-04-2025 17:07
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36193802)
I’ve got a good friend who is trans male to female and I’d love to put her in a room with you whilst some of you talk the way you do on the issue, you would be picking your teeth up from the floor in seconds
Perhaps indicative of why he should change with the men and not the women.

Jaymoss 03-04-2025 17:46
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36193802)
Is it though ? The implication as I read it is that ‘all pretend females with a penis’ represent a threat to all ‘natural women’

If my understanding is correct that can only mean one of two things

‘All trans women represent a threat to women’
‘All men represent a threat to women’

I’ve got a good friend who is trans male to female and I’d love to put her in a room with you whilst some of you talk the way you do on the issue, you would be picking your teeth up from the floor in seconds
Threatened as in the emotion not the action. You can feel threatened without someone actually threatening you. It can simple be a feeling of unsafe and tbh I do not blame them. Feeling threatened emotionally is entirely different to threatening someone

mrmistoffelees 03-04-2025 18:31
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193817)
Perhaps indicative of why he should change with the men and not the women.
Not really.Come to boro and you would find in most cases that the women are quicker to get physical and much much more aggressive…..

mrmistoffelees 03-04-2025 18:35
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36193821)
Threatened as in the emotion not the action. You can feel threatened without someone actually threatening you. It can simple be a feeling of unsafe and tbh I do not blame them. Feeling threatened emotionally is entirely different to threatening someone
I’m reminded of this for some reason

https://youtu.be/zopCDSK69gs?si=uJS1Uau6J2_HctKu

ianch99 03-04-2025 18:50
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36193802)
Is it though ? The implication as I read it is that ‘all pretend females with a penis’ represent a threat to all ‘natural women’

If my understanding is correct that can only mean one of two things

‘All trans women represent a threat to women’
‘All men represent a threat to women’

I’ve got a good friend who is trans male to female and I’d love to put her in a room with you whilst some of you talk the way you do on the issue, you would be picking your teeth up from the floor in seconds
And yet your trans friend is considered a man with no accommodation. More over they have a "psychological disorder" and so represent a danger to "real" women. These are the times we live in where empathy and tolerance are diminished.

jfman 03-04-2025 18:54
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193831)
And yet your trans friend is considered a man with no accommodation. More over they have a "psychological disorder" and so represent a danger to "real" women. These are the times we live in where empathy and tolerance are diminished.
I don’t know why only getting into women’s toilets and changing rooms are considered tolerant or empathetic.

ianch99 03-04-2025 18:54
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36193806)
That's stretching it beyond safe bounds.

I accept that the conversation, by not acknowledging genuine trans cases (Male-->Female), seems to deprecate said genuine cases. But we are not that harsh nor unreasonable. The real issue here is about men with appendages that are either perverts or make women uncomfortable when the biological man undresses.

There is surgery available for genuine M-F cases.
This, the latter case, is the one I am focusing on. It is this case where men/women have gone through many rounds of psychological, chemical and surgical procedures to attain the form they feel is their national one, only to be told they will never be accepted and, moreover, will be regarded as an mentally ill freak.

Jaymoss 03-04-2025 18:58
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36193829)
I’m reminded of this for some reason

https://youtu.be/zopCDSK69gs?si=uJS1Uau6J2_HctKu
Fear of something that is not happening is one thing fear of something that is happening and some real women with vaginas are faced with women with penises in what should be the same place. Your argument flawed and pointless

Incidentally I would go in the room and I would defend myself against a biological male and am more than capable of doing so so what is your point?? That could be taken as a threat btw I feel harassed alarmed and distressed at the very though of you woman with a penis assaulting me #( not really do not care I am not a snowflake )

Pierre 03-04-2025 19:20
Re: The gender ideology thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36193802)
‘All men represent a threat to women’
In case you weren’t aware ……it’s that one. I would insert the word “potentially” though.

And Trans-women, I reject the term but will use it, are men

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:03 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36193802)
I’ve got a good friend who is trans male to female and I’d love to put her in a room with you whilst some of you talk the way you do on the issue, you would be picking your teeth up from the floor in seconds
Point proven.

So your lovely “women” is capable of breaking a few jaws is she? Has a temper? Thanks for making it clear to everyone.

---------- Post added at 19:09 ---------- Previous post was at 19:06 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36193827)
Not really.Come to boro and you would find in most cases that the women are quicker to get physical and much much more aggressive…..
Yes, I have a Yorkshire terrier that is very aggressive and ready to fight. A pit bull would end him in one second…..

---------- Post added at 19:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193831)
And yet your trans friend is considered a man with no accommodation.
Because he is. He can dress up and go about his business, no problem.

Quote:
More over they have a "psychological disorder"
Yes they do, are you suggesting they don’t?

Quote:
and so represent a danger to "real" women.
“Some” potentially do.

I’m intrigued as to why you have “real” in inverted commas? But at least it means you acknowledge that they are not women.

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193833)
will be regarded as a mentally ill freak.
Well, that’s your term, nobody else’s.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:25.
Page 1 of 4 1 234
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum