Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One for the Politics forum? " Possibly unless people would like to focus on the towel whipping bit? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess?" Neither, she just correct | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess?" Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. " People have their own criteria for what constitutes being a cunt. If it was something which could be objectively measured, parties wouldn't be so divided on issues like this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. " Nooooo! You can't call her a can't! There's lotsa folks more deserving of that moniker than here, surely?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is literally about a bill going through Scottish parliament. More than most of these sorts of threads, this one seems very clear-cut." It’s a law passed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess?" I think it's good to put this before the law. They will take her on. She will lose. Then there will be an appeal. Still at least if they are talking about that they won't be talking about the nhs or the water pollution or roads or inflation or immigration or covid... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Going exactly as expected. " As I said earlier.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is literally about a bill going through Scottish parliament. More than most of these sorts of threads, this one seems very clear-cut. It’s a law passed. " Sorry, yes. More's the point, mind. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? I think it's good to put this before the law. They will take her on. She will lose. Then there will be an appeal. Still at least if they are talking about that they won't be talking about the nhs or the water pollution or roads or inflation or immigration or covid... " Surely you're not suggesting that the government's up to shenanigans distracting from more pressing issues and therefore not serving the people it exists to represent? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works." She really isn't. She's just arguing a different side of the argument. Which is very difficult for some people to understand without resorting to cheap shots. It is long overdue because everyone else has been too shit scared to take it on. I admire her balls. Proper discussion should be had. Once laws are passed they affect everyone. And the new law has not had sufficient scrutiny yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? I think it's good to put this before the law. They will take her on. She will lose. Then there will be an appeal. Still at least if they are talking about that they won't be talking about the nhs or the water pollution or roads or inflation or immigration or covid... Surely you're not suggesting that the government's up to shenanigans distracting from more pressing issues and therefore not serving the people it exists to represent?" Is there money in it? Then sure as shit some of them will have their fingers in it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works." My 14 year old would agree with you 100 per cent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works. She really isn't. She's just arguing a different side of the argument. Which is very difficult for some people to understand without resorting to cheap shots. It is long overdue because everyone else has been too shit scared to take it on. I admire her balls. Proper discussion should be had. Once laws are passed they affect everyone. And the new law has not had sufficient scrutiny yet. " It's ironic that you appear to be taking Rowlings side whilst admiring her balls? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works." There it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. People have their own criteria for what constitutes being a cunt. If it was something which could be objectively measured, parties wouldn't be so divided on issues like this." we need to draw that line for racism, sexual orientation etc. Tbh, there is an argument that a man may try and abuse the system. Valid. That doesn't mean every person transitioning is doing it for the reasons, are a risk to cis women, or don't need their own protection. How you articulate that can be with empathy or with much more negative emotions that can hurt the innocent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. People have their own criteria for what constitutes being a cunt. If it was something which could be objectively measured, parties wouldn't be so divided on issues like this." It's all about cunt though and the criteria for it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. People have their own criteria for what constitutes being a cunt. If it was something which could be objectively measured, parties wouldn't be so divided on issues like this.we need to draw that line for racism, sexual orientation etc. Tbh, there is an argument that a man may try and abuse the system. Valid. That doesn't mean every person transitioning is doing it for the reasons, are a risk to cis women, or don't need their own protection. How you articulate that can be with empathy or with much more negative emotions that can hurt the innocent. " How many men would need to abuse the system before it's deemed to be dangerous? I'd suggest that question can only be answered by women themselves - if we could agree on what they actually are of course, coming back to that 'objective measure' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works. She really isn't. She's just arguing a different side of the argument. Which is very difficult for some people to understand without resorting to cheap shots. It is long overdue because everyone else has been too shit scared to take it on. I admire her balls. Proper discussion should be had. Once laws are passed they affect everyone. And the new law has not had sufficient scrutiny yet. It's ironic that you appear to be taking Rowlings side whilst admiring her balls?" Isn't it just. Wonder how that happened. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess?" Shes an arsehole | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Shes an arsehole" Well thought out response | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is long overdue because everyone else has been too shit scared to take it on. I admire her balls. Proper discussion should be had." In the context of this topic, this is genius. I admire her balls  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works. She really isn't. She's just arguing a different side of the argument. Which is very difficult for some people to understand without resorting to cheap shots. It is long overdue because everyone else has been too shit scared to take it on. I admire her balls. Proper discussion should be had. Once laws are passed they affect everyone. And the new law has not had sufficient scrutiny yet. It's ironic that you appear to be taking Rowlings side whilst admiring her balls? Isn't it just. Wonder how that happened. " Calling it now, at the gallows she will raise her skirt revealing she's hung like a donkey, resulting in a bigger plot twist than anything she ever put in her books. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works. She really isn't. She's just arguing a different side of the argument. Which is very difficult for some people to understand without resorting to cheap shots. It is long overdue because everyone else has been too shit scared to take it on. I admire her balls. Proper discussion should be had. Once laws are passed they affect everyone. And the new law has not had sufficient scrutiny yet. " I draw you back to if she was just expressing her opinion, whilst vile, she is absolutely entitled to do that. That is not what she spends every day doing. Her most recent target was India Willoughby, who now has to have police protection due to the harassment she has received because of it. Inciting hatred is a crime. Everyone, regardless of any factor, is a human being and deserve to be treated equally with dignity and respect (the obvious monsters notwithstanding). She is not affording that to anyone who does not conform to what her ideals are. Anyone who's read HP also clearly know her views on Jewish people, so she absolutely has previous when it comes to hating a community. She's an absolute cunt, pure and simple. Even the franchsise's stars have vocally distanced themselves from her. Anyone who agrees with her behaviour needs to reexamine themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Shes an arsehole" Absolutely ?? agree and that's putting it polite! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. People have their own criteria for what constitutes being a cunt. If it was something which could be objectively measured, parties wouldn't be so divided on issues like this.we need to draw that line for racism, sexual orientation etc. Tbh, there is an argument that a man may try and abuse the system. Valid. That doesn't mean every person transitioning is doing it for the reasons, are a risk to cis women, or don't need their own protection. How you articulate that can be with empathy or with much more negative emotions that can hurt the innocent. How many men would need to abuse the system before it's deemed to be dangerous? I'd suggest that question can only be answered by women themselves - if we could agree on what they actually are of course, coming back to that 'objective measure' " let's ban priests. And scouts. And youth football. People abuse systems. It's horrible but it's true. The question is one of balance or risk. Would Brianna Ghey and other fwmalw presenting people be safer using mens bathrooms than women's ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works. She really isn't. She's just arguing a different side of the argument. Which is very difficult for some people to understand without resorting to cheap shots. It is long overdue because everyone else has been too shit scared to take it on. I admire her balls. Proper discussion should be had. Once laws are passed they affect everyone. And the new law has not had sufficient scrutiny yet. I draw you back to if she was just expressing her opinion, whilst vile, she is absolutely entitled to do that. That is not what she spends every day doing. Her most recent target was India Willoughby, who now has to have police protection due to the harassment she has received because of it. Inciting hatred is a crime. Everyone, regardless of any factor, is a human being and deserve to be treated equally with dignity and respect (the obvious monsters notwithstanding). She is not affording that to anyone who does not conform to what her ideals are. Anyone who's read HP also clearly know her views on Jewish people, so she absolutely has previous when it comes to hating a community. She's an absolute cunt, pure and simple. Even the franchsise's stars have vocally distanced themselves from her. Anyone who agrees with her behaviour needs to reexamine themselves. " I'm sure she'll not lose sleep over any overpaid "luvvies" distancing themselves from her. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works. She really isn't. She's just arguing a different side of the argument. Which is very difficult for some people to understand without resorting to cheap shots. It is long overdue because everyone else has been too shit scared to take it on. I admire her balls. Proper discussion should be had. Once laws are passed they affect everyone. And the new law has not had sufficient scrutiny yet. I draw you back to if she was just expressing her opinion, whilst vile, she is absolutely entitled to do that. That is not what she spends every day doing. Her most recent target was India Willoughby, who now has to have police protection due to the harassment she has received because of it. Inciting hatred is a crime. Everyone, regardless of any factor, is a human being and deserve to be treated equally with dignity and respect (the obvious monsters notwithstanding). She is not affording that to anyone who does not conform to what her ideals are. Anyone who's read HP also clearly know her views on Jewish people, so she absolutely has previous when it comes to hating a community. She's an absolute cunt, pure and simple. Even the franchsise's stars have vocally distanced themselves from her. Anyone who agrees with her behaviour needs to reexamine themselves. I'm sure she'll not lose sleep over any overpaid "luvvies" distancing themselves from her. " Of course she won't, her head is too far up her own arse to notice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works. She really isn't. She's just arguing a different side of the argument. Which is very difficult for some people to understand without resorting to cheap shots. It is long overdue because everyone else has been too shit scared to take it on. I admire her balls. Proper discussion should be had. Once laws are passed they affect everyone. And the new law has not had sufficient scrutiny yet. I draw you back to if she was just expressing her opinion, whilst vile, she is absolutely entitled to do that. That is not what she spends every day doing. Her most recent target was India Willoughby, who now has to have police protection due to the harassment she has received because of it. Inciting hatred is a crime. Everyone, regardless of any factor, is a human being and deserve to be treated equally with dignity and respect (the obvious monsters notwithstanding). She is not affording that to anyone who does not conform to what her ideals are. Anyone who's read HP also clearly know her views on Jewish people, so she absolutely has previous when it comes to hating a community. She's an absolute cunt, pure and simple. Even the franchsise's stars have vocally distanced themselves from her. Anyone who agrees with her behaviour needs to reexamine themselves. " Im not so sure she is inciting anything by using the same media to counter her own vilification. What's sauce for the goose. It does shine a light on the inability fot media to conduct any debate at all without resorting to name calling and incitement though. By putting it through the courts at least a reasoned debate will be forced. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. People have their own criteria for what constitutes being a cunt. If it was something which could be objectively measured, parties wouldn't be so divided on issues like this.we need to draw that line for racism, sexual orientation etc. Tbh, there is an argument that a man may try and abuse the system. Valid. That doesn't mean every person transitioning is doing it for the reasons, are a risk to cis women, or don't need their own protection. How you articulate that can be with empathy or with much more negative emotions that can hurt the innocent. How many men would need to abuse the system before it's deemed to be dangerous? I'd suggest that question can only be answered by women themselves - if we could agree on what they actually are of course, coming back to that 'objective measure' let's ban priests. And scouts. And youth football. People abuse systems. It's horrible but it's true. The question is one of balance or risk." As I said, it's for women to answer, as the spaces belong to them. " Would Brianna Ghey and other fwmalw presenting people be safer using mens bathrooms than women's ? " See above. Out of curiosity though, if Elliot Page ever broke the law, should he be incarcerated in a men's prison? I imagine it'd be a bit of a Jaffar/Genie moment? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. People have their own criteria for what constitutes being a cunt. If it was something which could be objectively measured, parties wouldn't be so divided on issues like this.we need to draw that line for racism, sexual orientation etc. Tbh, there is an argument that a man may try and abuse the system. Valid. That doesn't mean every person transitioning is doing it for the reasons, are a risk to cis women, or don't need their own protection. How you articulate that can be with empathy or with much more negative emotions that can hurt the innocent. How many men would need to abuse the system before it's deemed to be dangerous? I'd suggest that question can only be answered by women themselves - if we could agree on what they actually are of course, coming back to that 'objective measure' let's ban priests. And scouts. And youth football. People abuse systems. It's horrible but it's true. The question is one of balance or risk. Would Brianna Ghey and other fwmalw presenting people be safer using mens bathrooms than women's ? " I’m a woman, one person abusing the system is too many but that doesn’t mean I can’t still agree with TAFKA on cunty people. People will always abuse others to feel powerful over them unless we start taking a stand and pull them up on their behaviour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works. She really isn't. She's just arguing a different side of the argument. Which is very difficult for some people to understand without resorting to cheap shots. It is long overdue because everyone else has been too shit scared to take it on. I admire her balls. Proper discussion should be had. Once laws are passed they affect everyone. And the new law has not had sufficient scrutiny yet. I draw you back to if she was just expressing her opinion, whilst vile, she is absolutely entitled to do that. That is not what she spends every day doing. Her most recent target was India Willoughby, who now has to have police protection due to the harassment she has received because of it. Inciting hatred is a crime. Everyone, regardless of any factor, is a human being and deserve to be treated equally with dignity and respect (the obvious monsters notwithstanding). She is not affording that to anyone who does not conform to what her ideals are. Anyone who's read HP also clearly know her views on Jewish people, so she absolutely has previous when it comes to hating a community. She's an absolute cunt, pure and simple. Even the franchsise's stars have vocally distanced themselves from her. Anyone who agrees with her behaviour needs to reexamine themselves. Im not so sure she is inciting anything by using the same media to counter her own vilification. What's sauce for the goose. It does shine a light on the inability fot media to conduct any debate at all without resorting to name calling and incitement though. By putting it through the courts at least a reasoned debate will be forced. " She's not making comments purely in defence to anything that's being said about her, for the most part. She is on twitter every single day, interacting with and promoting other terfs and frothing at the mouth that trans people have the audacity to exist. The reason she's unhappy about this law is that she will have to face consequences for doing that. That's why she's mad. If you're in doubt, search for her other penname Robert Galbraith and see what a lovely person he was. She claims she picked that name at random - did she fuck. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. " It is ironic that one thing in the Scottish Hate crime bill that is not covered by hate crime is someone’s _actual_ sex. It says something about a law that bans “hate” but actually allows someone to call a woman a cunt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. People have their own criteria for what constitutes being a cunt. If it was something which could be objectively measured, parties wouldn't be so divided on issues like this.we need to draw that line for racism, sexual orientation etc. Tbh, there is an argument that a man may try and abuse the system. Valid. That doesn't mean every person transitioning is doing it for the reasons, are a risk to cis women, or don't need their own protection. How you articulate that can be with empathy or with much more negative emotions that can hurt the innocent. How many men would need to abuse the system before it's deemed to be dangerous? I'd suggest that question can only be answered by women themselves - if we could agree on what they actually are of course, coming back to that 'objective measure' let's ban priests. And scouts. And youth football. People abuse systems. It's horrible but it's true. The question is one of balance or risk. As I said, it's for women to answer, as the spaces belong to them. Would Brianna Ghey and other fwmalw presenting people be safer using mens bathrooms than women's ? See above. Out of curiosity though, if Elliot Page ever broke the law, should he be incarcerated in a men's prison? I imagine it'd be a bit of a Jaffar/Genie moment?" imo, you can look at jail case by case. As there are so few. And starting point is gender at point of crime and the nature of the crime. So I'd be starting at yes, male. Would women feel safe if he was in their safe space? How about an even more imposing trans man ? if we are asking women to decide on women's safe space, then we should be asking trans community to decide on speach against trans. Or where they are imprisoned. I dont think there are easy answers here. I think how you have this conversation is important. It can be done with respect and empathy. And we can appreciate the risks and issues without being a nob to individuals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. It is ironic that one thing in the Scottish Hate crime bill that is not covered by hate crime is someone’s _actual_ sex. It says something about a law that bans “hate” but actually allows someone to call a woman a cunt. "
Apparently they're working on another law for that. O-)
I just hope they're able to adequately define what a woman is....
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. It is ironic that one thing in the Scottish Hate crime bill that is not covered by hate crime is someone’s _actual_ sex. It says something about a law that bans “hate” but actually allows someone to call a woman a cunt. " I also doesn't in why they have added some protected stuff to the law and not others. I never called her anything for the record. It's my general view on many of these laws which are generally to stop people acting like twats. And that while one can debate these things, there's a way of doing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. People have their own criteria for what constitutes being a cunt. If it was something which could be objectively measured, parties wouldn't be so divided on issues like this.we need to draw that line for racism, sexual orientation etc. Tbh, there is an argument that a man may try and abuse the system. Valid. That doesn't mean every person transitioning is doing it for the reasons, are a risk to cis women, or don't need their own protection. How you articulate that can be with empathy or with much more negative emotions that can hurt the innocent. How many men would need to abuse the system before it's deemed to be dangerous? I'd suggest that question can only be answered by women themselves - if we could agree on what they actually are of course, coming back to that 'objective measure' let's ban priests. And scouts. And youth football. People abuse systems. It's horrible but it's true. The question is one of balance or risk. As I said, it's for women to answer, as the spaces belong to them. Would Brianna Ghey and other fwmalw presenting people be safer using mens bathrooms than women's ? See above. Out of curiosity though, if Elliot Page ever broke the law, should he be incarcerated in a men's prison? I imagine it'd be a bit of a Jaffar/Genie moment?imo, you can look at jail case by case. As there are so few. And starting point is gender at point of crime and the nature of the crime. So I'd be starting at yes, male. Would women feel safe if he was in their safe space? How about an even more imposing trans man ? if we are asking women to decide on women's safe space, then we should be asking trans community to decide on speach against trans. Or where they are imprisoned. I dont think there are easy answers here. I think how you have this conversation is important. It can be done with respect and empathy. And we can appreciate the risks and issues without being a nob to individuals. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. It is ironic that one thing in the Scottish Hate crime bill that is not covered by hate crime is someone’s _actual_ sex. It says something about a law that bans “hate” but actually allows someone to call a woman a cunt. " It was reported that there's a misogyny law coming for that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I draw you back to if she was just expressing her opinion, whilst vile, she is absolutely entitled to do that. That is not what she spends every day doing. Her most recent target was India Willoughby, who now has to have police protection due to the harassment she has received because of it. Inciting hatred is a crime. Everyone, regardless of any factor, is a human being and deserve to be treated equally with dignity and respect (the obvious monsters notwithstanding). She is not affording that to anyone who does not conform to what her ideals are. Anyone who's read HP also clearly know her views on Jewish people, so she absolutely has previous when it comes to hating a community. She's an absolute cunt, pure and simple. Even the franchsise's stars have vocally distanced themselves from her. Anyone who agrees with her behaviour needs to reexamine themselves. " In a nutshell ^ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. It is ironic that one thing in the Scottish Hate crime bill that is not covered by hate crime is someone’s _actual_ sex. It says something about a law that bans “hate” but actually allows someone to call a woman a cunt. It was reported that there's a misogyny law coming for that" But obviously not important enough to include in the _actual_ Hate bill | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. It is ironic that one thing in the Scottish Hate crime bill that is not covered by hate crime is someone’s _actual_ sex. It says something about a law that bans “hate” but actually allows someone to call a woman a cunt. It was reported that there's a misogyny law coming for that But obviously not important enough to include in the _actual_ Hate bill "Yeah, that's weird | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. It is ironic that one thing in the Scottish Hate crime bill that is not covered by hate crime is someone’s _actual_ sex. It says something about a law that bans “hate” but actually allows someone to call a woman a cunt. It was reported that there's a misogyny law coming for that" A full house indeed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Out of curiosity though, if Elliot Page ever broke the law, should he be incarcerated in a men's prison? I imagine it'd be a bit of a Jaffar/Genie moment? imo, you can look at jail case by case. As there are so few. And starting point is gender at point of crime and the nature of the crime. So I'd be starting at yes, male." And you don't believe that Elliot Page may face safety issues in placed in a men's prison? "Would women feel safe if he was in their safe space? How about an even more imposing trans man ?" I think female prisoners would probably be comfortable in the presence of Elliot Page but that's for them to decide. I don't know what a 'trans man' is? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. It is ironic that one thing in the Scottish Hate crime bill that is not covered by hate crime is someone’s _actual_ sex. It says something about a law that bans “hate” but actually allows someone to call a woman a cunt. It was reported that there's a misogyny law coming for that But obviously not important enough to include in the _actual_ Hate bill
Yeah, that's weird"I guess it is lucky that it is not included because it means someone in Dundee can call a woman a bitch and get away with it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She’s deeply problematic. Not a fan of her at all. " How? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Out of curiosity though, if Elliot Page ever broke the law, should he be incarcerated in a men's prison? I imagine it'd be a bit of a Jaffar/Genie moment? imo, you can look at jail case by case. As there are so few. And starting point is gender at point of crime and the nature of the crime. So I'd be starting at yes, male. And you don't believe that Elliot Page may face safety issues in placed in a men's prison? Would women feel safe if he was in their safe space? How about an even more imposing trans man ? I think female prisoners would probably be comfortable in the presence of Elliot Page but that's for them to decide. I don't know what a 'trans man' is?" I do believe there are safety issues. Always are with jails. I said it was a starting point. But again, why do cis women get a say on their safety but not trans women. And it appears we need a single rule. Women would need to be happy sharing a safe space with Buck Angel. I take your point that this is a decision for women. I'm not disagreeing with that per se. However they need to make a decision with butch trans men as well as the bogean "pretending" to be a women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. It is ironic that one thing in the Scottish Hate crime bill that is not covered by hate crime is someone’s _actual_ sex. It says something about a law that bans “hate” but actually allows someone to call a woman a cunt. It was reported that there's a misogyny law coming for that But obviously not important enough to include in the _actual_ Hate bill
Yeah, that's weird
I guess it is lucky that it is not included because it means someone in Dundee can call a woman a bitch and get away with it "law commission, expert opinion and major women’s groups, such as Women’s Aid and R-pe Crisis, believe it may actually be harmful and make it [mysogomy a hate crime] even harder to secure convictions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. It is ironic that one thing in the Scottish Hate crime bill that is not covered by hate crime is someone’s _actual_ sex. It says something about a law that bans “hate” but actually allows someone to call a woman a cunt. It was reported that there's a misogyny law coming for that But obviously not important enough to include in the _actual_ Hate bill
Yeah, that's weird
I guess it is lucky that it is not included because it means someone in Dundee can call a woman a bitch and get away with it "Last I checked, personality is not one of the nine protected characteristics. And as previously stated, expressing your opinion of someone and rounding people up to hound that person are two different things. One is a hate crime. You don't like me calling her a bitch or a cunt, which is what her behaviour is showing her to be? Tough. She has said much worse things. I said what I said, live mad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But again, why do cis women get a say on their safety but not trans women. " What's a woman? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. It is ironic that one thing in the Scottish Hate crime bill that is not covered by hate crime is someone’s _actual_ sex. It says something about a law that bans “hate” but actually allows someone to call a woman a cunt. It was reported that there's a misogyny law coming for that But obviously not important enough to include in the _actual_ Hate bill
Yeah, that's weird
I guess it is lucky that it is not included because it means someone in Dundee can call a woman a bitch and get away with it
Last I checked, personality is not one of the nine protected characteristics. And as previously stated, expressing your opinion of someone and rounding people up to hound that person are two different things. One is a hate crime.
You don't like me calling her a bitch or a cunt, which is what her behaviour is showing her to be? Tough. She has said much worse things.
I said what I said, live mad."Thanks for clarifying that. I am glad that everyone piling onto her are just “expressing their opinion” -which is a good thing - and they are not “rounding people up to hound” her because that would be a bad thing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But again, why do cis women get a say on their safety but not trans women. What's a woman?" What is a biscuit? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. It is ironic that one thing in the Scottish Hate crime bill that is not covered by hate crime is someone’s _actual_ sex. It says something about a law that bans “hate” but actually allows someone to call a woman a cunt. It was reported that there's a misogyny law coming for that But obviously not important enough to include in the _actual_ Hate bill
Yeah, that's weird
I guess it is lucky that it is not included because it means someone in Dundee can call a woman a bitch and get away with it
Last I checked, personality is not one of the nine protected characteristics. And as previously stated, expressing your opinion of someone and rounding people up to hound that person are two different things. One is a hate crime.
You don't like me calling her a bitch or a cunt, which is what her behaviour is showing her to be? Tough. She has said much worse things.
I said what I said, live mad."I don't understand the difference between people rounding up amd against jk Rowling which is OK... And jk Rowling (apparently) rounding up others... Which is according to you a hate crime. Even though it is yet to be tried at a court.? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess?" Villainous | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But again, why do cis women get a say on their safety but not trans women. What's a woman?" One ridiculous definition, that JK took exception to, was "a person who menstruates". By that definition, I'm not a woman. I can assure you I am. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One ridiculous definition, that JK took exception to, was "a person who menstruates". By that definition, I'm not a woman. I can assure you I am. " Is this.. empathy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But again, why do cis women get a say on their safety but not trans women. What's a woman? What is a biscuit?" You don't answer a question with a question. Answer mine and I'll gladly define a biscuit for you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All said and done, she’s quite fit for a woman of a certain age and I definitely would. "Wait till she reveals she actually has a dick and has been rickrolling everyone for years . That would be comedy gold | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems freedom to think and speak your mind - and be who you are is no longer viable to some, whichever way you look at it. Someone somewhere will think they have the right to judge others, no matter what. Life would be so much simpler if we all just live and let live. A CIS person has the right to be who they want to be and another individual has their own personal right not to find that acceptable. If we all just do us there's no issue in the first place. In the end the only genuine argument is when it comes to sport, where there then becomes an unfair advantage and/or a dangerous situation is being put in place that could cause harm or unfairness in competition in certain sports. I've seen this first hand and it had a very unpleasant outcome. Everything else is just about being kind and seeing another human being in front of them. For me personally I have trans. friends who I'm proud to be associated with and look on them as they'd wish to be looked upon, but I also have empathy with natural born women where they feel their rights are being ignored. There are absolutely fair arguments on both sides in some areas of this mess. Simply calling those we disagree with bigots (or worse) makes us pretty low on the food chain and utterly scummy. " Then in Rowlings case I am utterly scummy!! X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you like her opinions or not, you don't know what you are signing up for, if you love the government to arrest people for having these opinions. UK and many European countries have been going down this dangerous path of curbing free speech for a long time and some groups of people seem to think it's a great idea and supporting these kind of bills. I think it will be too late before these people realise what they signed up for. I hate so many things about the USA. But their first amendment is based as fuck. Wish UK had something like that." Yep. Be careful what you wish for folks. We don't need no legislation, we don't need no thought control or something like that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you like her opinions or not, you don't know what you are signing up for, if you love the government to arrest people for having these opinions. UK and many European countries have been going down this dangerous path of curbing free speech for a long time and some groups of people seem to think it's a great idea and supporting these kind of bills. I think it will be too late before these people realise what they signed up for. I hate so many things about the USA. But their first amendment is based as fuck. Wish UK had something like that." Imo there is free speech then there is hate speech! Imo Rowling spouts hate speech!! X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you like her opinions or not, you don't know what you are signing up for, if you love the government to arrest people for having these opinions. UK and many European countries have been going down this dangerous path of curbing free speech for a long time and some groups of people seem to think it's a great idea and supporting these kind of bills. I think it will be too late before these people realise what they signed up for. I hate so many things about the USA. But their first amendment is based as fuck. Wish UK had something like that. Imo there is free speech then there is hate speech! Imo Rowling spouts hate speech!! X" That's why it would be good to take this to court. To clarify what is considered hate speech and what laws, if any have been broken. Hopefully there is a better chance of a balanced intelligent debate in a court of law, as sadly there is little balance or intelligence evident in the shit stirring media. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My Two Pence. Speaking as a voice of experience. This debate is actually between two branches of leftwing identity politics. Neither of which speak for trans people. Context Under identity politics, gender is a social construct as the brain is (falsely) considered a sexless organ. Traditionalists such as Greer, Birchel, Rowling etc. therefore claim that as gender is just a social construct, transwomen are men "pretending" to be women, and should therefore not be afforded the rights of women. To traditionalists transwomen are another example of the patriarchy oppressing females. By Stonewall's definitions of gender, trans and women, we see the phrase transgender woman is simply a fancy way of saying crossdressing male, so the traditionalists argument has some validity in that sense. So called progressives claim that transgender women (males who identify as women by Stonewall's definitions) should be treated as women. Progressives do not consider biological sex to be of importance. To them, a dress,not a vagina, makes a person a woman. Now here's the thing. Both are talking crap, as both are arguing from a binary sexist position. That is they believe the theological view that all human beings are neatly divided into either male or female camps. Whilst true in terms of reproduction, in terms of born humanity it is not true. Nor does any medical science prove that human sociology is binary sexed. Both traditionalists and progressives claim that people like me "identify" as a woman. I do not. I am not a woman because a woman is an adult human female. However, nor was I ever a man, as a man is an adult human male. I was born transsex. That is my brain sex was female, contained in a body which was partially masculinised. I was born a transsex female. A third sex if you will. This is not a "feeling" nor an "identity", but a born biological reality proven by post mortem neurobiology study. I am a transwoman because I am an adult human transfemale. Not because I prefer frilly knickers to boxer shorts. Transgender women by contrast are males who crossdress. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with that, BUT, where Rowling is correct is that a person with a penis should not be allowed into female only spaces. Rowling is also correct to state a person cannot change sex. Where Rowling is incorrect however is to therefore claim transsex females like me are castrated males. We are transsex females. This is our born biology. We have not "changed sex". We have recieved surgery to fix a birth defect, no different to a person having any other form of corrective surgery. This is done to alleviate the psychological suffering caused by gender incongruity, and the resulting social rejection and hatred. So, in this final sense, Rowling is being an utter bee-atch in promoting hatred and bigotry toward transsex women, claiming they are male, based upon nothing more than her own theologically founded binary sexist world view. If, as Rowling and Stonewall claim, human beings are binary sexed, and sex is purely a function of reproduction... the basis of their argument, then both Rowling and Stonewall are adopting a position which implies that homosexuality is an abnormality. They deny the naturalness and value of homosexual love, because homosexual love making cannot create a child. Sex is not a binary defined by chromosomes and/or genitalia as they claim. Sex is not purely about reproduction as they claim. Human sex is defined by the brain and the sex act is about building human connection between individuals. From some sexual activity, but not all, a child is conceived. Rowling is obviously happy to self identify as a walking talking vagina. That is her right. But India Willoughby, myself and many other transsex women, are legally recognised by the state as women, because the state accepts that the sex of a human being is contained between the ears, not between the legs. Our born biological transhuman condition is a protected characteristic under law no different to racial heritage. By denying our born biological reality, deliberately referring to transwomen as "men", Rowling is clearly in breach of the Equality Act 2010 and is, in my opinion, guilty of inciting hatred toward tranwomen. In this very forum I have received PMs from men I do not know or have ever spoken to, referring to me as a man. This is both upsetting and damaging. It is no different to referring to someone of African racial heritage using the N word and/or denying the validity of their born biological humanity. Rowling, Greer, the Church, the Daily Mail... these are all traditionalist binary sexists spouting falsehood and hatred at transwoman. How many more 16 year old transgirls must be brutally murdered before these bigoted aholes accept their hate filled words have consequences?" Nice. A post on here I actually enjoyed reading! I think the issue is they are arguing from the context of feminism. They are trying to re-balance a system that for 9000 years has suffered from male dominated wars / violence, religions, politics and capitalism. And it’s a worthy cause , no one can be equal until women are equal. Equality of woman led to the inequality everybody against this system of domination. You see it everywhere in politics boardrooms and wars, It’s male dominated control of everything. So men identifying as women doesn’t help the cause, it’s almost an attack manoeuvre by the enemy , although not intended to be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you like her opinions or not, you don't know what you are signing up for, if you love the government to arrest people for having these opinions. UK and many European countries have been going down this dangerous path of curbing free speech for a long time and some groups of people seem to think it's a great idea and supporting these kind of bills. I think it will be too late before these people realise what they signed up for. I hate so many things about the USA. But their first amendment is based as fuck. Wish UK had something like that. Imo there is free speech then there is hate speech! Imo Rowling spouts hate speech!! X" The problem is that it's impossible to draw a line to separate hate speech. Is someone saying that trans women shouldn't be allowed inside female spaces hate speech? I wouldn't say so. But many would disagree. What happens in practice is that the government passes a vaguely defined "hate speech" law which they use as they will to arrest people randomly. Remember that for every law against free speech that left wing wants to pass, there is a corresponding law against free speech that the right wing wants to pass. You won't like the kind of laws the right wing wants to pass. This is why the government should have no business controlling someone's speech. The people who wrote the first amendment clearly knew this and enshrined it as a constitutional right. Every social media has a block button. You don't like what JK Rowling says? Block her and move on with your life. There is absolutely no need to get the government arrest people for saying things. It's a dangerous precedent to set. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Absolutely a villain and I say that as a Potter fan. She's Dolores Umbridge in nicer clothes. If she was just saying 'this is my opinion' and left it at that that's one thing, but she is using her global platform to stir up shit and aim it at trans people day in and day out who are just trying to go about their lives, it's all she bangs on about. She knows exactly what she is doing, and getting her fans to do. Her complaint isn't that it restricts her freedom of speech, it's that she feels that she should be free of the consequences of that speech. Sorry bitch, not how it works. She really isn't. She's just arguing a different side of the argument. Which is very difficult for some people to understand without resorting to cheap shots. It is long overdue because everyone else has been too shit scared to take it on. I admire her balls. Proper discussion should be had. Once laws are passed they affect everyone. And the new law has not had sufficient scrutiny yet. I draw you back to if she was just expressing her opinion, whilst vile, she is absolutely entitled to do that. That is not what she spends every day doing. Her most recent target was India Willoughby, who now has to have police protection due to the harassment she has received because of it. Inciting hatred is a crime. Everyone, regardless of any factor, is a human being and deserve to be treated equally with dignity and respect (the obvious monsters notwithstanding). She is not affording that to anyone who does not conform to what her ideals are. Anyone who's read HP also clearly know her views on Jewish people, so she absolutely has previous when it comes to hating a community. She's an absolute cunt, pure and simple. Even the franchsise's stars have vocally distanced themselves from her. Anyone who agrees with her behaviour needs to reexamine themselves. " Willoughby is nothing but a shit stirrer, he's orchestrated a campaign of online harassment against JK Rowling for months & then claims he needs protection when she retaliates. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course." Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One, don't be cunt. Two, when fighting for a right to be a cunt, argue carefully. " This.....x.....  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess? Shes an arsehole Well thought out response "No, it right, she's a vindictive cu** | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you like her opinions or not, you don't know what you are signing up for, if you love the government to arrest people for having these opinions. UK and many European countries have been going down this dangerous path of curbing free speech for a long time and some groups of people seem to think it's a great idea and supporting these kind of bills. I think it will be too late before these people realise what they signed up for. I hate so many things about the USA. But their first amendment is based as fuck. Wish UK had something like that. Imo there is free speech then there is hate speech! Imo Rowling spouts hate speech!! X" Exactly, she hates trans people, commented for years. Usual suspects in this chat support her ad well. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you like her opinions or not, you don't know what you are signing up for, if you love the government to arrest people for having these opinions. UK and many European countries have been going down this dangerous path of curbing free speech for a long time and some groups of people seem to think it's a great idea and supporting these kind of bills. I think it will be too late before these people realise what they signed up for. I hate so many things about the USA. But their first amendment is based as fuck. Wish UK had something like that. Imo there is free speech then there is hate speech! Imo Rowling spouts hate speech!! X Exactly, she hates trans people, commented for years. Usual suspects in this chat support her ad well." nothing changes! Xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are." I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory!" Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Willoughby is nothing but a shit stirrer, he's orchestrated a campaign of online harassment against JK Rowling for months & then claims he needs protection when she retaliates. " Here is a perfect example of derogatory speech. India Willoughby is legally female. That is she has been medically assessed as transsex, undergone corrective surgery, recieved state recognition of her transsex identity, and been issued with a new birth certificate stating she is female. Despite all of that, and for no other reason than to be offensive, this commentary deliberately rejects her legally recognised and legally protected characteristics and refers to her as "he". This is a denial of a person's born biological reality. Their born humanity. It is no different than using the N word to describe a person of African heritage. It is hatred of transwomen. The correct term for this bigotry is transmisogyny, and it is founded upon binary sexist ideology. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are." Most derogatory terms ever? I have to disagree there. I’m a woman but if people want to call themselves other things that’s cool. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. " Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"While I understand that people who have a certain set of views dislike the term cia women I'm not sure why it's derogatory. That said I'd they don't like the term I'd look to respect that and not use it in their direction. "Tbh no one has called me a cis or biological woman! On the other hand I have been called a transgender woman! Which is all fine!I'm not offended by any term! Certainly not by 3 little letters x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X" What's a fact? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? " Being cis! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Willoughby is nothing but a shit stirrer, he's orchestrated a campaign of online harassment against JK Rowling for months & then claims he needs protection when she retaliates. Here is a perfect example of derogatory speech. India Willoughby is legally female. That is she has been medically assessed as transsex, undergone corrective surgery, recieved state recognition of her transsex identity, and been issued with a new birth certificate stating she is female. Despite all of that, and for no other reason than to be offensive, this commentary deliberately rejects her legally recognised and legally protected characteristics and refers to her as "he". This is a denial of a person's born biological reality. Their born humanity. It is no different than using the N word to describe a person of African heritage. It is hatred of transwomen. The correct term for this bigotry is transmisogyny, and it is founded upon binary sexist ideology." JK is a fucking legend. Willoughby is a man. To compare the word "man" the N word is utterly ridiculous and incredibly insulting to any black person. Give your head a wobble. I don't give a fuck how people identify, dress or what they call themselves. But to try and legislate against women being able to call a man a man has a direct impact on our rights. How can I voice concerns about someone who appears to be a man in a woman's space if I can't say "that is a man"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis!" The irony. We're supposed to respect pronouns and call Desperate Dan "Deirdre" whenever he feels like it but should we ask not to called CIS you refuse.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"While I understand that people who have a certain set of views dislike the term cia women I'm not sure why it's derogatory. That said I'd they don't like the term I'd look to respect that and not use it in their direction. "Because it is the language of an ideology that I do not adhere to. And it suggests that I am a sub category of my own sex. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you like her opinions or not, you don't know what you are signing up for, if you love the government to arrest people for having these opinions. UK and many European countries have been going down this dangerous path of curbing free speech for a long time and some groups of people seem to think it's a great idea and supporting these kind of bills. I think it will be too late before these people realise what they signed up for. I hate so many things about the USA. But their first amendment is based as fuck. Wish UK had something like that. Imo there is free speech then there is hate speech! Imo Rowling spouts hate speech!! X Exactly, she hates trans people, commented for years. Usual suspects in this chat support her ad well." Did you actually read her essay or any of her original tweets when she first dipped her toes into this issue? She clearly supported trans people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The irony. We're supposed to respect pronouns and call Desperate Dan "Deirdre" whenever he feels like it but should we ask not to called CIS you refuse...." This did go through my mind too to be fair | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The irony. We're supposed to respect pronouns and call Desperate Dan "Deirdre" whenever he feels like it but should we ask not to called CIS you refuse...." I'm not refusing anything? I'm voicing an opinion that I don't mind being called cis? And that it's just a fact same as a transgender woman is a fact! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Willoughby is nothing but a shit stirrer, he's orchestrated a campaign of online harassment against JK Rowling for months & then claims he needs protection when she retaliates. Here is a perfect example of derogatory speech. India Willoughby is legally female. That is she has been medically assessed as transsex, undergone corrective surgery, recieved state recognition of her transsex identity, and been issued with a new birth certificate stating she is female. Despite all of that, and for no other reason than to be offensive, this commentary deliberately rejects her legally recognised and legally protected characteristics and refers to her as "he". This is a denial of a person's born biological reality. Their born humanity. It is no different than using the N word to describe a person of African heritage. It is hatred of transwomen. The correct term for this bigotry is transmisogyny, and it is founded upon binary sexist ideology. JK is a fucking legend. Willoughby is a man. To compare the word "man" the N word is utterly ridiculous and incredibly insulting to any black person. Give your head a wobble. I don't give a fuck how people identify, dress or what they call themselves. But to try and legislate against women being able to call a man a man has a direct impact on our rights. How can I voice concerns about someone who appears to be a man in a woman's space if I can't say "that is a man"?" "I don't think this person should be in this space" I note that you want to be able to say someone who "appears" to be a man, "a man". Maybe they aren't. Maybe they just look more masculine than average. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She's currently on Twitter sticking her head in the mouth of Scotlands new hate crime bill and towel whipping it's testicles. But is she a heroine or a villainess?" Anyone tackling that draconian law is a Hero. As for her? She has been bullied too much for words taken vastly out of context by intellectually bankrupt collectivists. C | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The irony. We're supposed to respect pronouns and call Desperate Dan "Deirdre" whenever he feels like it but should we ask not to called CIS you refuse.... I'm not refusing anything? I'm voicing an opinion that I don't mind being called cis? And that it's just a fact same as a transgender woman is a fact! " It's not a "fact". It's a word that has been made trendy by folk who buy into this pish to try and suggest that there are different categories of women. Sex, on the other hand is fact. India Willoughby is a man. Fact Eddie Izzard is a man. Fact. Does this mean either of these two deserve hatred, death threats etc? Of course bloody not. It just means they should stay the fuck out of women's spaces. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Willoughby is nothing but a shit stirrer, he's orchestrated a campaign of online harassment against JK Rowling for months & then claims he needs protection when she retaliates. Here is a perfect example of derogatory speech. India Willoughby is legally female. That is she has been medically assessed as transsex, undergone corrective surgery, recieved state recognition of her transsex identity, and been issued with a new birth certificate stating she is female. Despite all of that, and for no other reason than to be offensive, this commentary deliberately rejects her legally recognised and legally protected characteristics and refers to her as "he". This is a denial of a person's born biological reality. Their born humanity. It is no different than using the N word to describe a person of African heritage. It is hatred of transwomen. The correct term for this bigotry is transmisogyny, and it is founded upon binary sexist ideology. JK is a fucking legend. Willoughby is a man. To compare the word "man" the N word is utterly ridiculous and incredibly insulting to any black person. Give your head a wobble. I don't give a fuck how people identify, dress or what they call themselves. But to try and legislate against women being able to call a man a man has a direct impact on our rights. How can I voice concerns about someone who appears to be a man in a woman's space if I can't say "that is a man"?"I don't think this person should be in this space" I note that you want to be able to say someone who "appears" to be a man, "a man". Maybe they aren't. Maybe they just look more masculine than average. " Maybe they are a masculine woman. In which case I would look like an utter fanny (not the first time) and would apologise profusely. My point is that this law, if implemented as many TRAs would wish it to be,could have the effect of scaring women so much that they wouldn't dare even believe the evidence of their eyes. Any man on this thread who has a daughter and wouldn't have an issue with her sharing a space with a man who calls himself a woman should hang his head in shame. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis!" The word has been in the dictionary less than 10 years and was only coined as an antonym of trans. Hardly makes it 'fact'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don't give a fuck how people identify, dress or what they call themselves. But to try and legislate against women being able to call a man a man has a direct impact on our rights. How can I voice concerns about someone who appears to be a man in a woman's space if I can't say "that is a man"?"I don't think this person should be in this space" I note that you want to be able to say someone who "appears" to be a man, "a man". Maybe they aren't. Maybe they just look more masculine than average. " This last sentence is important. We were served in a restaurant recently ñ, by a person who appeared masculine but was presenting in typically feminine waiting clothing - a skirt, blouse and wore makeup etc. I genuinely have no idea if they were male, female, transgender etc. It really didn't matter, though. They did their job well, were helpful, kind to the children in our party and got on well with my Dad's dementia-related nonsense. It mattered not one jot whether they were male, female or trans. Had I made an assumption about their gender, I may well a) have been wrong, and b) caused great offence. I did once, unintentionally, misgender a child to their parent. It reminded me how important it is not to assume and how easy it is to avoid doing. Instead of me referring to their "daughter" (actually their son), I could just have said "your child". For context, the child had insisted I should read them a book in the library, while my own daughter was sat reading to herself. The parent then noticed his child was asking me to read to them, and came over. Even better, when you know someone's name, is just to use that. But respect if they want to use a different name to the one on their passport. It matters not what name someone wishes to use or if it's their "official" name. If it were such an issue, most Daves, Steves, Mikes, Jims and similar should be addressed only by the full version of their names. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
.
Mrs | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The word has been in the dictionary less than 10 years and was only coined as an antonym of trans. Hardly makes it 'fact'." Cis has been in the dictionary for a lot longer than that. Originally alongside trans as prefixes to describe molecular structure - cis- and trans- isomers. However, it's been around in the German language in reference to gender since 1914, apparently, and since 1994 in the English language (so 30 years). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"While I understand that people who have a certain set of views dislike the term cia women I'm not sure why it's derogatory. That said I'd they don't like the term I'd look to respect that and not use it in their direction. "It’s derogatory because it makes us a subcategory of our own (and already oppressed) sex class. It makes it harder to stand up for our rights if we’re a diluted subcategory. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The word has been in the dictionary less than 10 years and was only coined as an antonym of trans. Hardly makes it 'fact'. Cis has been in the dictionary for a lot longer than that. Originally alongside trans as prefixes to describe molecular structure - cis- and trans- isomers. However, it's been around in the German language in reference to gender since 1914, apparently, and since 1994 in the English language (so 30 years)." It entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don't give a fuck how people identify, dress or what they call themselves. But to try and legislate against women being able to call a man a man has a direct impact on our rights. How can I voice concerns about someone who appears to be a man in a woman's space if I can't say "that is a man"?"I don't think this person should be in this space" I note that you want to be able to say someone who "appears" to be a man, "a man". Maybe they aren't. Maybe they just look more masculine than average. This last sentence is important. We were served in a restaurant recently ñ, by a person who appeared masculine but was presenting in typically feminine waiting clothing - a skirt, blouse and wore makeup etc. I genuinely have no idea if they were male, female, transgender etc. It really didn't matter, though. They did their job well, were helpful, kind to the children in our party and got on well with my Dad's dementia-related nonsense. It mattered not one jot whether they were male, female or trans. Had I made an assumption about their gender, I may well a) have been wrong, and b) caused great offence. I did once, unintentionally, misgender a child to their parent. It reminded me how important it is not to assume and how easy it is to avoid doing. Instead of me referring to their "daughter" (actually their son), I could just have said "your child". For context, the child had insisted I should read them a book in the library, while my own daughter was sat reading to herself. The parent then noticed his child was asking me to read to them, and came over. Even better, when you know someone's name, is just to use that. But respect if they want to use a different name to the one on their passport. It matters not what name someone wishes to use or if it's their "official" name. If it were such an issue, most Daves, Steves, Mikes, Jims and similar should be addressed only by the full version of their names. " There are a handful of instances in life when knowing another person's sex matters. In any situation where I could be physically vulnerable, in a prison or women's shelter for example. Ordering pie & mash for Sunday lunch isn't one of those instances. In that case I couldn't care less who is serving me, how they were dressed or what they were called. I'd call the server by their name. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hero. Do find it ironic that it's always men trying to dictate things to us women .
Mrs "The hand maidens are worse I think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The word has been in the dictionary less than 10 years and was only coined as an antonym of trans. Hardly makes it 'fact'. Cis has been in the dictionary for a lot longer than that. Originally alongside trans as prefixes to describe molecular structure - cis- and trans- isomers. However, it's been around in the German language in reference to gender since 1914, apparently, and since 1994 in the English language (so 30 years). It entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015. " It was used first in English in reference to gender, in 1994. It's not relevant when it was first published in a dictionary that requires words have use in society for a period of time, before adding them. E.g. the word "gay" in reference to homosexuality was published in the OED in 1951, but it was in societal use in this way from the 19th century onwards. And is a far older word meaning "cheerful" or "happy" prior to that. No-one would say that "gay" only entered the OED in 1951, however. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender#:~:text=the%20term%20there.-,Coinage,transgender%20people%20were%20an%20other. Cis entered the OED in reference to Chemistry in 1889. The OED itself didn't exist before 1884, but words definitely existed before then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is a fucking legend. Willoughby is a man. To compare the word "man" the N word is utterly ridiculous and incredibly insulting to any black person. Give your head a wobble. I don't give a fuck how people identify, dress or what they call themselves. But to try and legislate against women being able to call a man a man has a direct impact on our rights. How can I voice concerns about someone who appears to be a man in a woman's space if I can't say "that is a man"?" Sorry. But this is nonsense. Binary sexist nonsense that falsely claims all human beings are neatly divided into XY males with a penis and XX females with a vagina. We are not walking talking genitalia. Even if you identify as such. India Willoughby is not "a man" as you claim. A claim you make because in your world view anybody who isn't a woman must be a man. India Willoughby has been medically proven to be born transsex. That is the sex of her brain (the bit where a person's humanity lies) has been assessed by medical professionals as female. That is she was born a transsex female. A born biological, immutable reality. India Willoughby has undergone corrective surgery. She has been legally recognised by the state as transfemale. The state has issued a new birth certificate stating her transfemale reality as fact in law. I agree she is not a women. But that does not make her a man. She is a transwoman because she is an adult human transfemale. She was born a transfemale. Its a proven birth reality. Not a lifestyle or fashion choice. Refusing to accept a person's born transsex humanity, an immutable physical characteristic over which they have no control, and treating them with deliberate disrespect and or hatred, is exactly the same as using the N word to describe people of African heritage. A point agreed upon by numerous black people who I have spoken to. You see bigotry is almost always founded upon immutable physical characteristics over which the victim has no control. This is why they are called protected characteristics within the 2010 Equality Act. And why a person's transsex reality, or racial heritage, are treated exactly the same under the law. My head needs no wobble. However you may need to read up upon the law. Either India Willoughby nor myself "identify". We ARE. No legislation is being passed to oppress women. Legislation is being passed to stop some bigoted people from deliberately attacking others. How can you voice concern about a person who "appears to be a man in a women's space" Wow.... simply wow. It is incredible that you can identify any and all people's sex characteristics by their outward appearance. I seem to remember that judging a woman's validity by her appearance is called sexism. It is a key aspect of the women's rights movement. Why is it then that it appears to be acceptable to you to judge a transwoman's validity by her appearance? Why... I'd suggest because you express transmisogynist opinions. I know many natal females who are much more visually masculine than I. Know many males who are much more visually feminine than I. I do not look at a person in the street nor the public bathroom, and immediately make an assumption about their genitalia, chromosomes nor more importantly their brain sex (gender), based upon nothing more than their fashion sense or physical characteristics. For to do so would enhance the bigotry at the heart of sexism and strengthen the inequalities faced by all females. To do so would be to promote biological determinism and I'm not a believer in such unscientific bigoted nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The word has been in the dictionary less than 10 years and was only coined as an antonym of trans. Hardly makes it 'fact'. Cis has been in the dictionary for a lot longer than that. Originally alongside trans as prefixes to describe molecular structure - cis- and trans- isomers. However, it's been around in the German language in reference to gender since 1914, apparently, and since 1994 in the English language (so 30 years). It entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015. It was used first in English in reference to gender, in 1994. It's not relevant when it was first published in a dictionary that requires words have use in society for a period of time, before adding them. E.g. the word "gay" in reference to homosexuality was published in the OED in 1951, but it was in societal use in this way from the 19th century onwards. And is a far older word meaning "cheerful" or "happy" prior to that. No-one would say that "gay" only entered the OED in 1951, however. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender#:~:text=the%20term%20there.-,Coinage,transgender%20people%20were%20an%20other. Cis entered the OED in reference to Chemistry in 1889. The OED itself didn't exist before 1884, but words definitely existed before then." If its not relevant when it entered the dictionary, why did you state it had been in the dictionary (in reference to gender) for 'a lot longer than that'? As I originally said, it was coined only as an antonym to 'trans' which was in '94, it has only been used widely (that really should be the measure) I'd say for less than 5 years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"While I understand that people who have a certain set of views dislike the term cia women I'm not sure why it's derogatory. That said I'd they don't like the term I'd look to respect that and not use it in their direction.
It’s derogatory because it makes us a subcategory of our own (and already oppressed) sex class.
It makes it harder to stand up for our rights if we’re a diluted subcategory."Right, so I presume you object to all other classifications than woman? "Black woman", "Red-haired woman", "Career woman", etc. By your logic it's equally derogatory to be called a white woman, because "white" is the most common ethnicity in the UK and is considered generally to be the default. Why is this different? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is a fucking legend. Willoughby is a man. To compare the word "man" the N word is utterly ridiculous and incredibly insulting to any black person. Give your head a wobble. I don't give a fuck how people identify, dress or what they call themselves. But to try and legislate against women being able to call a man a man has a direct impact on our rights. How can I voice concerns about someone who appears to be a man in a woman's space if I can't say "that is a man"? Sorry. But this is nonsense. Binary sexist nonsense that falsely claims all human beings are neatly divided into XY males with a penis and XX females with a vagina. We are not walking talking genitalia. Even if you identify as such. India Willoughby is not "a man" as you claim. A claim you make because in your world view anybody who isn't a woman must be a man. India Willoughby has been medically proven to be born transsex. That is the sex of her brain (the bit where a person's humanity lies) has been assessed by medical professionals as female. That is she was born a transsex female. A born biological, immutable reality. India Willoughby has undergone corrective surgery. She has been legally recognised by the state as transfemale. The state has issued a new birth certificate stating her transfemale reality as fact in law. I agree she is not a women. But that does not make her a man. She is a transwoman because she is an adult human transfemale. She was born a transfemale. Its a proven birth reality. Not a lifestyle or fashion choice. Refusing to accept a person's born transsex humanity, an immutable physical characteristic over which they have no control, and treating them with deliberate disrespect and or hatred, is exactly the same as using the N word to describe people of African heritage. A point agreed upon by numerous black people who I have spoken to. You see bigotry is almost always founded upon immutable physical characteristics over which the victim has no control. This is why they are called protected characteristics within the 2010 Equality Act. And why a person's transsex reality, or racial heritage, are treated exactly the same under the law. My head needs no wobble. However you may need to read up upon the law. Either India Willoughby nor myself "identify". We ARE. No legislation is being passed to oppress women. Legislation is being passed to stop some bigoted people from deliberately attacking others. How can you voice concern about a person who "appears to be a man in a women's space" Wow.... simply wow. It is incredible that you can identify any and all people's sex characteristics by their outward appearance. I seem to remember that judging a woman's validity by her appearance is called sexism. It is a key aspect of the women's rights movement. Why is it then that it appears to be acceptable to you to judge a transwoman's validity by her appearance? Why... I'd suggest because you express transmisogynist opinions. I know many natal females who are much more visually masculine than I. Know many males who are much more visually feminine than I. I do not look at a person in the street nor the public bathroom, and immediately make an assumption about their genitalia, chromosomes nor more importantly their brain sex (gender), based upon nothing more than their fashion sense or physical characteristics. For to do so would enhance the bigotry at the heart of sexism and strengthen the inequalities faced by all females. To do so would be to promote biological determinism and I'm not a believer in such unscientific bigoted nonsense. " He is not a woman. Therefore he does not belong in women's space. Extensive plastic surgery and documentation supplied by the government to support a legal fiction does not make him female in any way, shape or form. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are a handful of instances in life when knowing another person's sex matters. In any situation where I could be physically vulnerable, in a prison or women's shelter for example. Ordering pie & mash for Sunday lunch isn't one of those instances. In that case I couldn't care less who is serving me, how they were dressed or what they were called. I'd call the server by their name. " Taking each paragraph in turn. 1. For this reason the state issues Gender Recognition Certificates to those people who have undergone gender corrective surgery, after being medically assessed as born transsex, and who have satisfied the strict requirements of the law. India Willoughby is one such person. Her sex is recognised by the state as female. 2. I dispute this statement. As evidence I present the fact you know India Willoughby is legally recognised by the state as a transfemale. Yet despite this legal recognition and medically proven birth reality, you refuse to accept her as the transfemale that she is and insist upon referring to her as "a man" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"While I understand that people who have a certain set of views dislike the term cia women I'm not sure why it's derogatory. That said I'd they don't like the term I'd look to respect that and not use it in their direction.
It’s derogatory because it makes us a subcategory of our own (and already oppressed) sex class.
It makes it harder to stand up for our rights if we’re a diluted subcategory.
Right, so I presume you object to all other classifications than woman? "Black woman", "Red-haired woman", "Career woman", etc.
By your logic it's equally derogatory to be called a white woman, because "white" is the most common ethnicity in the UK and is considered generally to be the default. Why is this different?"Why do you appear to have an issue with women wanting to keep men out of their spaces? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The word has been in the dictionary less than 10 years and was only coined as an antonym of trans. Hardly makes it 'fact'. Cis has been in the dictionary for a lot longer than that. Originally alongside trans as prefixes to describe molecular structure - cis- and trans- isomers. However, it's been around in the German language in reference to gender since 1914, apparently, and since 1994 in the English language (so 30 years). It entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015. It was used first in English in reference to gender, in 1994. It's not relevant when it was first published in a dictionary that requires words have use in society for a period of time, before adding them. E.g. the word "gay" in reference to homosexuality was published in the OED in 1951, but it was in societal use in this way from the 19th century onwards. And is a far older word meaning "cheerful" or "happy" prior to that. No-one would say that "gay" only entered the OED in 1951, however. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender#:~:text=the%20term%20there.-,Coinage,transgender%20people%20were%20an%20other. Cis entered the OED in reference to Chemistry in 1889. The OED itself didn't exist before 1884, but words definitely existed before then. If its not relevant when it entered the dictionary, why did you state it had been in the dictionary (in reference to gender) for 'a lot longer than that'? As I originally said, it was coined only as an antonym to 'trans' which was in '94, it has only been used widely (that really should be the measure) I'd say for less than 5 years. " Cis and trans as opposite prefixes, are, as I have explained, far older than their use in relation to gender. In Chemistry, they have been in common and consistent use since the mid 19th century. The terms originate in Latin. I stated cis was first used in the English language, in reference to gender, in 1994. I did not state it was in any kind of dictionary. The OED only enters "new" words or adds new meanings to existing words, once they can evidence consistent use in society first. Another random example, "hashtag" entered the OED in 2014, but the OED's own entry states that its earliest evidence of usage is 2007. Words occur in common societal parlance first before later being added "officially" to a dictionary. However, a word doesn't need to be present in a dictionary to exist and have meaning. Just ask any toddler (whose parents understand exactly what they're saying, even if the OED does not). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"While I understand that people who have a certain set of views dislike the term cia women I'm not sure why it's derogatory. That said I'd they don't like the term I'd look to respect that and not use it in their direction.
It’s derogatory because it makes us a subcategory of our own (and already oppressed) sex class.
It makes it harder to stand up for our rights if we’re a diluted subcategory.
Right, so I presume you object to all other classifications than woman? "Black woman", "Red-haired woman", "Career woman", etc.
By your logic it's equally derogatory to be called a white woman, because "white" is the most common ethnicity in the UK and is considered generally to be the default. Why is this different?"I think you’re missing the point. Woman is a synonym for female. Women are oppressed and discriminated against in our society due to our sex. If you dilute women and say “not all women are female” then it makes it harder for us to organize, speak up, and eradicate oppression. Black women are a subset of women. That doesn’t harm them because they still are women. They are also black. They can organize on issues of being black women as a subgroup or they can organize as part of being women on matters of sex. When you also say that male people can be women, you can no longer talk about women as a distinct category, because they aren’t. If male people are women, then it is no longer true that women are oppressed on the basis of their sex. This is gaslighting. Telling a whole oppressed group that their oppression is not true means that they can no longer (easily) organize and speak up about these things that affect them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The word has been in the dictionary less than 10 years and was only coined as an antonym of trans. Hardly makes it 'fact'. Cis has been in the dictionary for a lot longer than that. Originally alongside trans as prefixes to describe molecular structure - cis- and trans- isomers. However, it's been around in the German language in reference to gender since 1914, apparently, and since 1994 in the English language (so 30 years). It entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015. It was used first in English in reference to gender, in 1994. It's not relevant when it was first published in a dictionary that requires words have use in society for a period of time, before adding them. E.g. the word "gay" in reference to homosexuality was published in the OED in 1951, but it was in societal use in this way from the 19th century onwards. And is a far older word meaning "cheerful" or "happy" prior to that. No-one would say that "gay" only entered the OED in 1951, however. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender#:~:text=the%20term%20there.-,Coinage,transgender%20people%20were%20an%20other. Cis entered the OED in reference to Chemistry in 1889. The OED itself didn't exist before 1884, but words definitely existed before then. If its not relevant when it entered the dictionary, why did you state it had been in the dictionary (in reference to gender) for 'a lot longer than that'? As I originally said, it was coined only as an antonym to 'trans' which was in '94, it has only been used widely (that really should be the measure) I'd say for less than 5 years. Cis and trans as opposite prefixes, are, as I have explained, far older than their use in relation to gender. In Chemistry, they have been in common and consistent use since the mid 19th century. The terms originate in Latin. I stated cis was first used in the English language, in reference to gender, in 1994. I did not state it was in any kind of dictionary. The OED only enters "new" words or adds new meanings to existing words, once they can evidence consistent use in society first. Another random example, "hashtag" entered the OED in 2014, but the OED's own entry states that its earliest evidence of usage is 2007. Words occur in common societal parlance first before later being added "officially" to a dictionary. However, a word doesn't need to be present in a dictionary to exist and have meaning. Just ask any toddler (whose parents understand exactly what they're saying, even if the OED does not). " No one gives a fuck about chemistry, we're not speaking about the word in that context so it has zero relevance. You're trying to make some sort of debate out of my facts, are you obsessed with me or something? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are a handful of instances in life when knowing another person's sex matters. In any situation where I could be physically vulnerable, in a prison or women's shelter for example. Ordering pie & mash for Sunday lunch isn't one of those instances. In that case I couldn't care less who is serving me, how they were dressed or what they were called. I'd call the server by their name. Taking each paragraph in turn. 1. For this reason the state issues Gender Recognition Certificates to those people who have undergone gender corrective surgery, after being medically assessed as born transsex, and who have satisfied the strict requirements of the law. India Willoughby is one such person. Her sex is recognised by the state as female. 2. I dispute this statement. As evidence I present the fact you know India Willoughby is legally recognised by the state as a transfemale. Yet despite this legal recognition and medically proven birth reality, you refuse to accept her as the transfemale that she is and insist upon referring to her as "a man"" You should really just ask him out. You seem to be pretty stuck on our India. It's a piece of paper. I have a driver's licence which demonstrates that I met all the criteria required to drive a vehicle legally on the road. If you saw me drive you'd question this. I wouldn't walk up to a trans woman/man in the street and declare "you're a man!" The point I am making, as I have stated above, is that when discussing this issue in a debate or in a real life situation where a person's sex does matter then women need to be able to speak freely and call a man a man. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The word has been in the dictionary less than 10 years and was only coined as an antonym of trans. Hardly makes it 'fact'. Cis has been in the dictionary for a lot longer than that. Originally alongside trans as prefixes to describe molecular structure - cis- and trans- isomers. However, it's been around in the German language in reference to gender since 1914, apparently, and since 1994 in the English language (so 30 years)." There are many words in the dictionary. Cunt is one. Doesn't mean very much at all as far as whether it is offensive or is commonly used. Some words are used by a very small percentage of society. At the moment cis is one of them. It may become common parlance. But suspect the debate will rumble along for a fair while yet. Some people simply see no need for using the word when describing male and or female. Some do and choose to. Both should be tolerated in a tolerant society. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"While I understand that people who have a certain set of views dislike the term cia women I'm not sure why it's derogatory. That said I'd they don't like the term I'd look to respect that and not use it in their direction.
It’s derogatory because it makes us a subcategory of our own (and already oppressed) sex class.
It makes it harder to stand up for our rights if we’re a diluted subcategory.
Right, so I presume you object to all other classifications than woman? "Black woman", "Red-haired woman", "Career woman", etc.
By your logic it's equally derogatory to be called a white woman, because "white" is the most common ethnicity in the UK and is considered generally to be the default. Why is this different?
I think you’re missing the point.
Woman is a synonym for female.
Women are oppressed and discriminated against in our society due to our sex.
If you dilute women and say “not all women are female” then it makes it harder for us to organize, speak up, and eradicate oppression.
Black women are a subset of women. That doesn’t harm them because they still are women. They are also black. They can organize on issues of being black women as a subgroup or they can organize as part of being women on matters of sex.
When you also say that male people can be women, you can no longer talk about women as a distinct category, because they aren’t. If male people are women, then it is no longer true that women are oppressed on the basis of their sex.
This is gaslighting. Telling a whole oppressed group that their oppression is not true means that they can no longer (easily) organize and speak up about these things that affect them." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He is not a woman. Therefore he does not belong in women's space. Extensive plastic surgery and documentation supplied by the government to support a legal fiction does not make him female in any way, shape or form." Would it be offensive to call your gender into question? We have very little reason to believe you're a cis woman, only that you ticked a box to declare such and provided a passing photo for the mods to approve. For what it's worth, I'm not calling it into question - I am happy to take gender expression on face value. But if you aren't, and you want us to police who is and isn't a woman, how would you authenticate yourself? And, can all cis - that is, not-trans - women authenticate themselves in the same manner? If not, who gets left out? And is that okay? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is such an exasperating argument. Here are my thoughts... I like JK Rowling for standing up for what she believes in... I think a man is a man and a woman is a woman. I think trans woman is a trans woman and trans man is a trans man. We can't say these things are the same because they are not. I can't stand the term CIS, it's not a moniker I choose to align myself with and I won't ever describe myself as such. I am a man. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The word has been in the dictionary less than 10 years and was only coined as an antonym of trans. Hardly makes it 'fact'. Cis has been in the dictionary for a lot longer than that. Originally alongside trans as prefixes to describe molecular structure - cis- and trans- isomers. However, it's been around in the German language in reference to gender since 1914, apparently, and since 1994 in the English language (so 30 years). It entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015. It was used first in English in reference to gender, in 1994. It's not relevant when it was first published in a dictionary that requires words have use in society for a period of time, before adding them. E.g. the word "gay" in reference to homosexuality was published in the OED in 1951, but it was in societal use in this way from the 19th century onwards. And is a far older word meaning "cheerful" or "happy" prior to that. No-one would say that "gay" only entered the OED in 1951, however. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender#:~:text=the%20term%20there.-,Coinage,transgender%20people%20were%20an%20other. Cis entered the OED in reference to Chemistry in 1889. The OED itself didn't exist before 1884, but words definitely existed before then. If its not relevant when it entered the dictionary, why did you state it had been in the dictionary (in reference to gender) for 'a lot longer than that'? As I originally said, it was coined only as an antonym to 'trans' which was in '94, it has only been used widely (that really should be the measure) I'd say for less than 5 years. Cis and trans as opposite prefixes, are, as I have explained, far older than their use in relation to gender. In Chemistry, they have been in common and consistent use since the mid 19th century. The terms originate in Latin. I stated cis was first used in the English language, in reference to gender, in 1994. I did not state it was in any kind of dictionary. The OED only enters "new" words or adds new meanings to existing words, once they can evidence consistent use in society first. Another random example, "hashtag" entered the OED in 2014, but the OED's own entry states that its earliest evidence of usage is 2007. Words occur in common societal parlance first before later being added "officially" to a dictionary. However, a word doesn't need to be present in a dictionary to exist and have meaning. Just ask any toddler (whose parents understand exactly what they're saying, even if the OED does not). No one gives a fuck about chemistry, we're not speaking about the word in that context so it has zero relevance. You're trying to make some sort of debate out of my facts, are you obsessed with me or something?" I'm just pointing out that cis and trans did not suddenly come into existence in 2015, as you have asserted. Whether or not you were aware or have used the terms in Chemistry is irrelevant. Had they not been appropriated from Latin to refer to forms of stereoisomer, then the terms almost certainly would not have evolved into use with relation to gender. One use led to another. Have a most splendiferous evening, with your facts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He is not a woman. Therefore he does not belong in women's space. Extensive plastic surgery and documentation supplied by the government to support a legal fiction does not make him female in any way, shape or form. Would it be offensive to call your gender into question? We have very little reason to believe you're a cis woman, only that you ticked a box to declare such and provided a passing photo for the mods to approve. For what it's worth, I'm not calling it into question - I am happy to take gender expression on face value. But if you aren't, and you want us to police who is and isn't a woman, how would you authenticate yourself? And, can all cis - that is, not-trans - women authenticate themselves in the same manner? If not, who gets left out? And is that okay?" You can call anything you like into question. I have the stretch marks, c section scars and bank balance of a 2 x mother (only women can be those btw). I've clearly stated that I don't want to be called a CIS woman. So I'll mostly be dinghying you from here on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" He is not a woman. Therefore he does not belong in women's space. Extensive plastic surgery and documentation supplied by the government to support a legal fiction does not make him female in any way, shape or form." Wow. Again with the denial of science to protect flawed ideology and theology. "Legal fiction" 
Tell me... what makes a female female. Is it chromosomes? Genitalia? The brain? Where is this female humanity housed?
This "legal fiction" you refer to means you reject 100 years of medical science. You reject the notion that a person's brain can have a sex that is different to other aspects of their body. No doubt you believe all people born with a vagina have XX chromosomes. Or that all people born with a penis have XY chromosomes.
Tell me, when a child is born with genital attributes of both male and female sex characteristics... what do you support? Do you believe that we should surgically alter their body to make it conform to our social views? To make their body conform to theological concepts? Or do we nurture them for who they are?
Being transsex is a born biological reality. The only "fiction" is the theological concept upon which your conservative feminism is founded. The idea that some supernatural entity called God created penis endowed men and vagina clad women. That sex is a fixed binary. That sex is only about reproduction. And therefore that any sex not capable of reproduction or any sex act not capable of reproduction, is an abnormality to be eradicated from society.
That is why binary sexist traditionalists mutilate newborns with differences of sexual development. To make them conform to theological concepts via plastic surgery and brainwashing.
That is why conservative feminists and theologians spread hate speech against transwomen... never... interestingly... against transmen.
That is why binary sexist theologians consider homosexuality an unnatural act.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The word has been in the dictionary less than 10 years and was only coined as an antonym of trans. Hardly makes it 'fact'. Cis has been in the dictionary for a lot longer than that. Originally alongside trans as prefixes to describe molecular structure - cis- and trans- isomers. However, it's been around in the German language in reference to gender since 1914, apparently, and since 1994 in the English language (so 30 years). It entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015. It was used first in English in reference to gender, in 1994. It's not relevant when it was first published in a dictionary that requires words have use in society for a period of time, before adding them. E.g. the word "gay" in reference to homosexuality was published in the OED in 1951, but it was in societal use in this way from the 19th century onwards. And is a far older word meaning "cheerful" or "happy" prior to that. No-one would say that "gay" only entered the OED in 1951, however. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender#:~:text=the%20term%20there.-,Coinage,transgender%20people%20were%20an%20other. Cis entered the OED in reference to Chemistry in 1889. The OED itself didn't exist before 1884, but words definitely existed before then. If its not relevant when it entered the dictionary, why did you state it had been in the dictionary (in reference to gender) for 'a lot longer than that'? As I originally said, it was coined only as an antonym to 'trans' which was in '94, it has only been used widely (that really should be the measure) I'd say for less than 5 years. Cis and trans as opposite prefixes, are, as I have explained, far older than their use in relation to gender. In Chemistry, they have been in common and consistent use since the mid 19th century. The terms originate in Latin. I stated cis was first used in the English language, in reference to gender, in 1994. I did not state it was in any kind of dictionary. The OED only enters "new" words or adds new meanings to existing words, once they can evidence consistent use in society first. Another random example, "hashtag" entered the OED in 2014, but the OED's own entry states that its earliest evidence of usage is 2007. Words occur in common societal parlance first before later being added "officially" to a dictionary. However, a word doesn't need to be present in a dictionary to exist and have meaning. Just ask any toddler (whose parents understand exactly what they're saying, even if the OED does not). No one gives a fuck about chemistry, we're not speaking about the word in that context so it has zero relevance. You're trying to make some sort of debate out of my facts, are you obsessed with me or something? I'm just pointing out that cis and trans did not suddenly come into existence in 2015, as you have asserted. Whether or not you were aware or have used the terms in Chemistry is irrelevant. Had they not been appropriated from Latin to refer to forms of stereoisomer, then the terms almost certainly would not have evolved into use with relation to gender. One use led to another. Have a most splendiferous evening, with your facts. " I didn't say 'suddenly come into existence'. I said it entered the dictionary (in context) less than 10 years ago - fact. It was coined as an antonym to trans - fact. It subsequently said I believe its been widely (not actually that widely) in the last 5 years - debatable. If you want to dispute the facts, great. If you want to teach us about Chemistry, no one cares in this thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course. Cis woman is one of the most derogatory terms ever, a woman is a woman. End of. They don't need a ridiculous prefix to determine what they are. I'm a cis woman! It's just a fact! I don't find it anyway derogatory! Some do dislike that label though don't they.? Just because you are ok and embrace it doesn't mean everyone does. Weather they dislike it or not its just a fact?? X What's a fact? Being cis! The word has been in the dictionary less than 10 years and was only coined as an antonym of trans. Hardly makes it 'fact'. Cis has been in the dictionary for a lot longer than that. Originally alongside trans as prefixes to describe molecular structure - cis- and trans- isomers. However, it's been around in the German language in reference to gender since 1914, apparently, and since 1994 in the English language (so 30 years). It entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015. It was used first in English in reference to gender, in 1994. It's not relevant when it was first published in a dictionary that requires words have use in society for a period of time, before adding them. E.g. the word "gay" in reference to homosexuality was published in the OED in 1951, but it was in societal use in this way from the 19th century onwards. And is a far older word meaning "cheerful" or "happy" prior to that. No-one would say that "gay" only entered the OED in 1951, however. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender#:~:text=the%20term%20there.-,Coinage,transgender%20people%20were%20an%20other. Cis entered the OED in reference to Chemistry in 1889. The OED itself didn't exist before 1884, but words definitely existed before then. If its not relevant when it entered the dictionary, why did you state it had been in the dictionary (in reference to gender) for 'a lot longer than that'? As I originally said, it was coined only as an antonym to 'trans' which was in '94, it has only been used widely (that really should be the measure) I'd say for less than 5 years. Cis and trans as opposite prefixes, are, as I have explained, far older than their use in relation to gender. In Chemistry, they have been in common and consistent use since the mid 19th century. The terms originate in Latin. I stated cis was first used in the English language, in reference to gender, in 1994. I did not state it was in any kind of dictionary. The OED only enters "new" words or adds new meanings to existing words, once they can evidence consistent use in society first. Another random example, "hashtag" entered the OED in 2014, but the OED's own entry states that its earliest evidence of usage is 2007. Words occur in common societal parlance first before later being added "officially" to a dictionary. However, a word doesn't need to be present in a dictionary to exist and have meaning. Just ask any toddler (whose parents understand exactly what they're saying, even if the OED does not). No one gives a fuck about chemistry, we're not speaking about the word in that context so it has zero relevance. You're trying to make some sort of debate out of my facts, are you obsessed with me or something? I'm just pointing out that cis and trans did not suddenly come into existence in 2015, as you have asserted. Whether or not you were aware or have used the terms in Chemistry is irrelevant. Had they not been appropriated from Latin to refer to forms of stereoisomer, then the terms almost certainly would not have evolved into use with relation to gender. One use led to another. Have a most splendiferous evening, with your facts. I didn't say 'suddenly come into existence'. I said it entered the dictionary (in context) less than 10 years ago - fact. It was coined as an antonym to trans - fact. It subsequently said I believe its been widely (not actually that widely) in the last 5 years - debatable. If you want to dispute the facts, great. If you want to teach us about Chemistry, no one cares in this thread. " I think it's biology that's needing taught to be fair. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You can call anything you like into question. I have the stretch marks, c section scars and bank balance of a 2 x mother (only women can be those btw). I've clearly stated that I don't want to be called a CIS woman. So I'll mostly be dinghying you from here on. "So your proof of sex is reproduction. I take it you therefore see no naturalness or validity in homosexual love nor homosexual relationships. After all... they cannot reproduce and sex is only about reproduction. Right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"JK is currently trying to say something on Twitter that would constitute a crime under the act, regularly outright saying that trans women are simply men "performing" as women, and that this constitutes a threat to cis women. I would hope the police there are giving her enough rope to hang herself, but she's probably smart enough also to know that. This circus will continue, whipping up a culture of hatred against any woman, cis or trans, that does not conform to her reductive idea of what a woman should be. None of this helps any cis woman anywhere, of course." Well said, as a cis woman I get a lot of negative crap because of how I look, because I don’t fit into the box of what society deems a woman so where does the trans hate stop? do we all need to conform to how society believes a woman should be if not we are not real women? We are all Human | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You can call anything you like into question. I have the stretch marks, c section scars and bank balance of a 2 x mother (only women can be those btw). I've clearly stated that I don't want to be called a CIS woman. So I'll mostly be dinghying you from here on.
So your proof of sex is reproduction.
I take it you therefore see no naturalness or validity in homosexual love nor homosexual relationships. After all... they cannot reproduce and sex is only about reproduction. Right?"You appear confused about the difference between sex (either male or female), sex (the act), and sexuality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" He is not a woman. Therefore he does not belong in women's space. Extensive plastic surgery and documentation supplied by the government to support a legal fiction does not make him female in any way, shape or form. Wow. Again with the denial of science to protect flawed ideology and theology. "Legal fiction"
Tell me... what makes a female female. Is it chromosomes? Genitalia? The brain? Where is this female humanity housed?
This "legal fiction" you refer to means you reject 100 years of medical science. You reject the notion that a person's brain can have a sex that is different to other aspects of their body. No doubt you believe all people born with a vagina have XX chromosomes. Or that all people born with a penis have XY chromosomes.
Tell me, when a child is born with genital attributes of both male and female sex characteristics... what do you support? Do you believe that we should surgically alter their body to make it conform to our social views? To make their body conform to theological concepts? Or do we nurture them for who they are?
Being transsex is a born biological reality. The only "fiction" is the theological concept upon which your conservative feminism is founded. The idea that some supernatural entity called God created penis endowed men and vagina clad women. That sex is a fixed binary. That sex is only about reproduction. And therefore that any sex not capable of reproduction or any sex act not capable of reproduction, is an abnormality to be eradicated from society.
That is why binary sexist traditionalists mutilate newborns with differences of sexual development. To make them conform to theological concepts via plastic surgery and brainwashing.
That is why conservative feminists and theologians spread hate speech against transwomen... never... interestingly... against transmen.
That is why binary sexist theologians consider homosexuality an unnatural act.
".....and breathe. Do you have a wee paper bag handy?..Mibbe stop a second and use it before you hyperventilate. In no particular order..... I don't have any particular issue with transmen. Have a guess why? Go on....you know really. That's right! It's cause they're women.
You are referring to intersex people I believe or folk who are born with DSDs. These are disorders of sexual development and absolutely nothing to do with a man thinking he can become a woman cause he had his dick lobbed off, bought a bad wig and put on some eyeliner. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You can call anything you like into question. I have the stretch marks, c section scars and bank balance of a 2 x mother (only women can be those btw). I've clearly stated that I don't want to be called a CIS woman. So I'll mostly be dinghying you from here on.
So your proof of sex is reproduction.
I take it you therefore see no naturalness or validity in homosexual love nor homosexual relationships. After all... they cannot reproduce and sex is only about reproduction. Right?"No. That's a bit of a stretch that one. Not as much as asking us to believe India Willoughby is a burd, granted, but still a bit of a stretch. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He is not a woman. Therefore he does not belong in women's space. Extensive plastic surgery and documentation supplied by the government to support a legal fiction does not make him female in any way, shape or form. Would it be offensive to call your gender into question? We have very little reason to believe you're a cis woman, only that you ticked a box to declare such and provided a passing photo for the mods to approve. For what it's worth, I'm not calling it into question - I am happy to take gender expression on face value. But if you aren't, and you want us to police who is and isn't a woman, how would you authenticate yourself? And, can all cis - that is, not-trans - women authenticate themselves in the same manner? If not, who gets left out? And is that okay? You can call anything you like into question. I have the stretch marks, c section scars and bank balance of a 2 x mother (only women can be those btw). I've clearly stated that I don't want to be called a CIS woman. So I'll mostly be dinghying you from here on. "I don't think we can define women purely on the basis of whether or if they can reproduce. Plenty of people born with XX chromosome and who identify as women, with vaginas, ovaries and all the required bits, can either fail to reproduce (despite trying) or not want to reproduce. To the best of my knowledge, I have XX genotype and have the female baby making bits and have 2 children. That doesn't make me more of a woman than my female friend of the same age, who has not had children. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, why is there no uproar regarding trans men? I believe that gender is non binary, so this is not meant to be controversial. Patriarchy is so entrenched in our society that trans women are prejudiced against due to male privilege. But there is no outrage in a similar vein towards trans men. Why not? If men and women were truly equal in society, this would not even be a discussion point. " Cause transmen are women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, why is there no uproar regarding trans men? I believe that gender is non binary, so this is not meant to be controversial. Patriarchy is so entrenched in our society that trans women are prejudiced against due to male privilege. But there is no outrage in a similar vein towards trans men. Why not? If men and women were truly equal in society, this would not even be a discussion point. " I'm also interested in the answer to this too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When you also say that male people can be women, you can no longer talk about women as a distinct category, because they aren’t. If male people are women, then it is no longer true that women are oppressed on the basis of their sex." Sure you can - in fact, including trans women is an excellent example of how people are oppressed based on gender, because as transwomen transition they start to experience oppression reserved only for women. Trans women often share examples of how they experience things they never would have as a man. On the specific gender/sex point I think you're getting at - yes, as we've come to learn more, we've had to hone in our language. Males raised as girls/women are not females but have experienced the same oppression, as an obvious example. Women aren't all female, and not all females are women - that's always been true, because sex isn't binary. "This is gaslighting. Telling a whole oppressed group that their oppression is not true means that they can no longer (easily) organize and speak up about these things that affect them." Trans women don't exist as a gas-lighting endeavour, and trans women - as a group - aren't oppressing women. Nobody is telling women that their oppression is not true, indeed the vast majority of trans allies are also feminists (notably, the allies of trans-exclusive feminists generally aren't feminists, and instead dwell on the socially conservative end of the spectrum). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He is not a woman. Therefore he does not belong in women's space. Extensive plastic surgery and documentation supplied by the government to support a legal fiction does not make him female in any way, shape or form. Would it be offensive to call your gender into question? We have very little reason to believe you're a cis woman, only that you ticked a box to declare such and provided a passing photo for the mods to approve. For what it's worth, I'm not calling it into question - I am happy to take gender expression on face value. But if you aren't, and you want us to police who is and isn't a woman, how would you authenticate yourself? And, can all cis - that is, not-trans - women authenticate themselves in the same manner? If not, who gets left out? And is that okay? You can call anything you like into question. I have the stretch marks, c section scars and bank balance of a 2 x mother (only women can be those btw). I've clearly stated that I don't want to be called a CIS woman. So I'll mostly be dinghying you from here on.
I don't think we can define women purely on the basis of whether or if they can reproduce. Plenty of people born with XX chromosome and who identify as women, with vaginas, ovaries and all the required bits, can either fail to reproduce (despite trying) or not want to reproduce.
To the best of my knowledge, I have XX genotype and have the female baby making bits and have 2 children. That doesn't make me more of a woman than my female friend of the same age, who has not had children. "But you are both of the sex which, unless through choice, disease or old age, would be able to have children. You are not impeded by having a cock & balls. That makes it a bit of a non starter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think it's biology that's needing taught to be fair." I agree. Here's some biology. In terms of reproduction human beings require male and female gametes to produce a foetus. However, that does not mean all born human beings can be neatly classified as male or female. Nor does it mean sex and sexual activity is purely a function of reproduction. Some human beings are born outside the traditional theologically defined binary sex catagories. Either in terms of their brain sex (gender) and/or other physical sex characteristics. As a result of misapplied human reproduction science, used by the church and other binary sexism advocates to falsely prove the binary sexism theory, none binary sex children born with physical attributes outside of this binary world view, suffer invasive and unnecessary surgical mutilation to make their bodies conform to theological concepts. When this surgery results in a mismatch between outward sex appearance and brain sex, or in the case of those born with a brain sex differing to outward physical sex characteristics, binary sexism advocates have promoted campaigns denying the victims born humanity, and routinely, to this day, associate such people as dangerous sexual deviants. It is nothing short of oppressing a person's born humanity to protect traditional theology and the political ideology that stemmed from it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a thought, why is there no uproar regarding trans men? I believe that gender is non binary, so this is not meant to be controversial. Patriarchy is so entrenched in our society that trans women are prejudiced against due to male privilege. But there is no outrage in a similar vein towards trans men. Why not? If men and women were truly equal in society, this would not even be a discussion point. I'm also interested in the answer to this too. " Cause transmen are women. No uproar from me against other women. I find it sad that many live to regret the changes they make to their bodies. But if they're adults and have been fully informed of the consequences then crack on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think it's biology that's needing taught to be fair. I agree. Here's some biology. In terms of reproduction human beings require male and female gametes to produce a foetus. However, that does not mean all born human beings can be neatly classified as male or female. Nor does it mean sex and sexual activity is purely a function of reproduction. Some human beings are born outside the traditional theologically defined binary sex catagories. Either in terms of their brain sex (gender) and/or other physical sex characteristics. As a result of misapplied human reproduction science, used by the church and other binary sexism advocates to falsely prove the binary sexism theory, none binary sex children born with physical attributes outside of this binary world view, suffer invasive and unnecessary surgical mutilation to make their bodies conform to theological concepts. When this surgery results in a mismatch between outward sex appearance and brain sex, or in the case of those born with a brain sex differing to outward physical sex characteristics, binary sexism advocates have promoted campaigns denying the victims born humanity, and routinely, to this day, associate such people as dangerous sexual deviants. It is nothing short of oppressing a person's born humanity to protect traditional theology and the political ideology that stemmed from it." Has India got back you yet? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Cause transmen are women. " And the difference between trans men and trans women is what, exactly? Why is it only trans women who appear to threaten so? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Cause transmen are women. And the difference between trans men and trans women is what, exactly? Why is it only trans women who appear to threaten so? " Transwomen pose the exact same threat to women as any other man. Because they are men! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well said, as a cis woman I get a lot of negative crap because of how I look, because I don’t fit into the box of what society deems a woman so where does the trans hate stop? do we all need to conform to how society believes a woman should be if not we are not real women? We are all Human " Well this is ultimately what it is, right. Policing women's bodies is the goal. I would be pretty comfortable asserting that most people stopped in women's bathrooms for "looking male" have been women. Women that lift or play rugby or whatever else are going to be first-class targets of this sort of hatred, because there's more of them than there are actual trans women. Don't be caught needing a wee if you haven't put on your regulation dress and make-up, I guess is the lesson here? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He is not a woman. Therefore he does not belong in women's space. Extensive plastic surgery and documentation supplied by the government to support a legal fiction does not make him female in any way, shape or form. Would it be offensive to call your gender into question? We have very little reason to believe you're a cis woman, only that you ticked a box to declare such and provided a passing photo for the mods to approve. For what it's worth, I'm not calling it into question - I am happy to take gender expression on face value. But if you aren't, and you want us to police who is and isn't a woman, how would you authenticate yourself? And, can all cis - that is, not-trans - women authenticate themselves in the same manner? If not, who gets left out? And is that okay? You can call anything you like into question. I have the stretch marks, c section scars and bank balance of a 2 x mother (only women can be those btw). I've clearly stated that I don't want to be called a CIS woman. So I'll mostly be dinghying you from here on. "Right, so women can be authenticated by having had children? If you're not a mother you're not a woman? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You can call anything you like into question. I have the stretch marks, c section scars and bank balance of a 2 x mother (only women can be those btw). I've clearly stated that I don't want to be called a CIS woman. So I'll mostly be dinghying you from here on.
So your proof of sex is reproduction.
I take it you therefore see no naturalness or validity in homosexual love nor homosexual relationships. After all... they cannot reproduce and sex is only about reproduction. Right?
No. That's a bit of a stretch that one.
Not as much as asking us to believe India Willoughby is a burd, granted, but still a bit of a stretch."Not a stretch at all. Your premise is that sex is purely a function of reproduction. If so, you can see no value or naturalness in homosexuality as homosexual sex cannot reproduce. Alternatively you accept that sex is not simply about reproduction but has a much more important social aspect. That sex is found between the ears not the legs. If so you must therefore accept that some people can be born with a sex that differs from their chromosomes or genitalia. In which case your refusal to respect or accept India Willoughby's born biological humanity marks you out as a hypocrite and a transmisogynist, abusing a subgroup of womanhood by the same methods used to abuse natal females. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well said, as a cis woman I get a lot of negative crap because of how I look, because I don’t fit into the box of what society deems a woman so where does the trans hate stop? do we all need to conform to how society believes a woman should be if not we are not real women? We are all Human Well this is ultimately what it is, right. Policing women's bodies is the goal. I would be pretty comfortable asserting that most people stopped in women's bathrooms for "looking male" have been women. Women that lift or play rugby or whatever else are going to be first-class targets of this sort of hatred, because there's more of them than there are actual trans women. Don't be caught needing a wee if you haven't put on your regulation dress and make-up, I guess is the lesson here?" How do you know what goes on in women's bathrooms then? Until fairly recently, most women wouldn't have given masculine presenting women more than a passing look in women's areas. Because it didn't cross their minds that normal men would dare to enter them. Now, because a small number of men have, women have became hyper vigilant. So well done all round. Not only has this fucked up ideology made women feel unsafe in their spaces, it's also made masculine looking women feel unwelcome in their spaces. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He is not a woman. Therefore he does not belong in women's space. Extensive plastic surgery and documentation supplied by the government to support a legal fiction does not make him female in any way, shape or form. Would it be offensive to call your gender into question? We have very little reason to believe you're a cis woman, only that you ticked a box to declare such and provided a passing photo for the mods to approve. For what it's worth, I'm not calling it into question - I am happy to take gender expression on face value. But if you aren't, and you want us to police who is and isn't a woman, how would you authenticate yourself? And, can all cis - that is, not-trans - women authenticate themselves in the same manner? If not, who gets left out? And is that okay? You can call anything you like into question. I have the stretch marks, c section scars and bank balance of a 2 x mother (only women can be those btw). I've clearly stated that I don't want to be called a CIS woman. So I'll mostly be dinghying you from here on.
I don't think we can define women purely on the basis of whether or if they can reproduce. Plenty of people born with XX chromosome and who identify as women, with vaginas, ovaries and all the required bits, can either fail to reproduce (despite trying) or not want to reproduce.
To the best of my knowledge, I have XX genotype and have the female baby making bits and have 2 children. That doesn't make me more of a woman than my female friend of the same age, who has not had children.
But you are both of the sex which, unless through choice, disease or old age, would be able to have children.
You are not impeded by having a cock & balls. That makes it a bit of a non starter."How do you define the sex or gender of people with non "standard" genotypes? E.g. XO (Turner syndrome, usually lacking internal sex organs); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) etc? How do we categorise people with both male and female sexual organs? Traditionally, people have been "assigned" to the gender of the outwardly observed sex organs but then someone like Caster Semenya finds years later than despite having a vagina, she has no uterus and instead has internal testes, not ovaries. But she was assigned female at birth due to not having a penis. Her genotype has been shown to be XY. This situation, and others similar, aren't as rare as people think they are. As we can do more to delve into people's genetic makeup and do more to investigate apparent anomalies in sexual development, e.g. lack of periods or infertility or other issues, we learn that sex and gender are not anywhere near as arbitrary as we once thought. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He is not a woman. Therefore he does not belong in women's space. Extensive plastic surgery and documentation supplied by the government to support a legal fiction does not make him female in any way, shape or form. Would it be offensive to call your gender into question? We have very little reason to believe you're a cis woman, only that you ticked a box to declare such and provided a passing photo for the mods to approve. For what it's worth, I'm not calling it into question - I am happy to take gender expression on face value. But if you aren't, and you want us to police who is and isn't a woman, how would you authenticate yourself? And, can all cis - that is, not-trans - women authenticate themselves in the same manner? If not, who gets left out? And is that okay? You can call anything you like into question. I have the stretch marks, c section scars and bank balance of a 2 x mother (only women can be those btw). I've clearly stated that I don't want to be called a CIS woman. So I'll mostly be dinghying you from here on.
Right, so women can be authenticated by having had children? If you're not a mother you're not a woman?"No. I am of the sex that can bare children. Not all women can or wish yo have children. I examined this earlier. If you are unable to have children because you have a cock & balls, you're a man. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He is not a woman. Therefore he does not belong in women's space. Extensive plastic surgery and documentation supplied by the government to support a legal fiction does not make him female in any way, shape or form. Would it be offensive to call your gender into question? We have very little reason to believe you're a cis woman, only that you ticked a box to declare such and provided a passing photo for the mods to approve. For what it's worth, I'm not calling it into question - I am happy to take gender expression on face value. But if you aren't, and you want us to police who is and isn't a woman, how would you authenticate yourself? And, can all cis - that is, not-trans - women authenticate themselves in the same manner? If not, who gets left out? And is that okay?" This is relevant but too hard to answer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well said, as a cis woman I get a lot of negative crap because of how I look, because I don’t fit into the box of what society deems a woman so where does the trans hate stop? do we all need to conform to how society believes a woman should be if not we are not real women? We are all Human Well this is ultimately what it is, right. Policing women's bodies is the goal. I would be pretty comfortable asserting that most people stopped in women's bathrooms for "looking male" have been women. Women that lift or play rugby or whatever else are going to be first-class targets of this sort of hatred, because there's more of them than there are actual trans women. Don't be caught needing a wee if you haven't put on your regulation dress and make-up, I guess is the lesson here? How do you know what goes on in women's bathrooms then? Until fairly recently, most women wouldn't have given masculine presenting women more than a passing look in women's areas. Because it didn't cross their minds that normal men would dare to enter them. Now, because a small number of men have, women have became hyper vigilant. So well done all round. Not only has this fucked up ideology made women feel unsafe in their spaces, it's also made masculine looking women feel unwelcome in their spaces." No, trans women have been using women's bathrooms for basically ever since gender-segregated bathrooms existed. Because trans women aren't a recent thing, they've existed ever since we tried enforcing a gender binary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He is not a woman. Therefore he does not belong in women's space. Extensive plastic surgery and documentation supplied by the government to support a legal fiction does not make him female in any way, shape or form. Would it be offensive to call your gender into question? We have very little reason to believe you're a cis woman, only that you ticked a box to declare such and provided a passing photo for the mods to approve. For what it's worth, I'm not calling it into question - I am happy to take gender expression on face value. But if you aren't, and you want us to police who is and isn't a woman, how would you authenticate yourself? And, can all cis - that is, not-trans - women authenticate themselves in the same manner? If not, who gets left out? And is that okay? You can call anything you like into question. I have the stretch marks, c section scars and bank balance of a 2 x mother (only women can be those btw). I've clearly stated that I don't want to be called a CIS woman. So I'll mostly be dinghying you from here on.
I don't think we can define women purely on the basis of whether or if they can reproduce. Plenty of people born with XX chromosome and who identify as women, with vaginas, ovaries and all the required bits, can either fail to reproduce (despite trying) or not want to reproduce.
To the best of my knowledge, I have XX genotype and have the female baby making bits and have 2 children. That doesn't make me more of a woman than my female friend of the same age, who has not had children.
But you are both of the sex which, unless through choice, disease or old age, would be able to have children.
You are not impeded by having a cock & balls. That makes it a bit of a non starter.
How do you define the sex or gender of people with non "standard" genotypes? E.g. XO (Turner syndrome, usually lacking internal sex organs); XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) etc? How do we categorise people with both male and female sexual organs? Traditionally, people have been "assigned" to the gender of the outwardly observed sex organs but then someone like Caster Semenya finds years later than despite having a vagina, she has no uterus and instead has internal testes, not ovaries. But she was assigned female at birth due to not having a penis. Her genotype has been shown to be XY.
This situation, and others similar, aren't as rare as people think they are.
As we can do more to delve into people's genetic makeup and do more to investigate apparent anomalies in sexual development, e.g. lack of periods or infertility or other issues, we learn that sex and gender are not anywhere near as arbitrary as we once thought. "Intersex & DSDs have absolutely nothing to do with being transgender. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well said, as a cis woman I get a lot of negative crap because of how I look, because I don’t fit into the box of what society deems a woman so where does the trans hate stop? do we all need to conform to how society believes a woman should be if not we are not real women? We are all Human Well this is ultimately what it is, right. Policing women's bodies is the goal. I would be pretty comfortable asserting that most people stopped in women's bathrooms for "looking male" have been women. Women that lift or play rugby or whatever else are going to be first-class targets of this sort of hatred, because there's more of them than there are actual trans women. Don't be caught needing a wee if you haven't put on your regulation dress and make-up, I guess is the lesson here?" I have been stopped so now if I need to use the toilet I keep my head down and don’t make eye contact, I have been threatened violence because I wouldn’t confirm whether I was female or male (I was never going to be right in that conversation) and I am a biological women, I have full empathy for all who face this sort of threatening behaviour At my work place we just have toilets, they are not gendered because toilets are just toilets, all individual cubicles | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Cause transmen are women. And the difference between trans men and trans women is what, exactly? Why is it only trans women who appear to threaten so? Transwomen pose the exact same threat to women as any other man. Because they are men!" But trans men receive testosterone, to make them more masculine, and therefore pose the same threat, surely? It boils down to an unequal society where men still hold privilege over women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Cause transmen are women. And the difference between trans men and trans women is what, exactly? Why is it only trans women who appear to threaten so? " Surely that's obvious.? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" .....and breathe. Do you have a wee paper bag handy?..Mibbe stop a second and use it before you hyperventilate." Sorry. Ad hominem attacks do not work. Try using intellect "In no particular order..... I don't have any particular issue with transmen. Have a guess why? Go on....you know really. That's right! It's cause they're women. "So your hatred is directed entirely at those you consider male. Hmm.. how exactly does such hatred of one sector of human society further the equality you seek to build? "You are referring to intersex people I believe or folk who are born with DSDs. These are disorders of sexual development and absolutely nothing to do with a man thinking he can become a woman cause he had his dick lobbed off, bought a bad wig and put on some eyeliner." "Disorders"? So because a person is born with genitalia that does not match a theologically defined binary sex norm... you classify their body as an unnatural product of disorder? As regards your second point, transsexism, that is being born with a brain sex that differs from other physical sex characteristics, has been shown in neurobiological studies. It has been discussed by Stamford University Professor Robert Sapolsky for example, as an intersex condition of the brain. Now personally I do not like the term "intersex" as it implies, as you do, that this born biological reality is some form of abnormality. A position favoured by binary sexist theologians, but not one founded in science. Here is a snippet of Professor Sapolsky discussing the Neurobiology of transsexism. https://youtu.be/8QScpDGqwsQ?si=BmbZrN7GX7MUeo0e Your position is that a person's genitalia determines their humanity. My position is that a person's brain determines their humanity. The science supports my position. The (patriarchal) theology supports yours. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
