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 Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc." He's always been out of touch. The vast majority of Tory MP's (and yes, many of other parties too) are and have been for decades. Because they've never lived the life of the average person, never experienced the daily challenges, the financial worries or the work/life balance issued that most of us do on a daily basis. They're career politicians who entered the role not for the public good, but because it serves a benefit to certain sectors, individuals and themselves and their families. They can't have empathy with sectors of society that they don't understand. They think that those who are different or who have problems are in situations of their own making, rather than being individuals whose lives are affected by the decisions and policies that they create and make. They feel they're providing solutions to life's problems when in fact they are the architects of them. The gap between them and us is immense. It'll never change and no amount of education and information will change their views on Joe public and how they view us. UK politics is fucked. Has been for a long time and it won't change.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He made a joke? That's it, we've had it! He's a witch and must be burnt! We could all keep focus on things that actually matter to everyday people? No, he's a witch, burn him! "Roasted Rishi....  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc. He's always been out of touch. The vast majority of Tory MP's (and yes, many of other parties too) are and have been for decades. Because they've never lived the life of the average person, never experienced the daily challenges, the financial worries or the work/life balance issued that most of us do on a daily basis. They're career politicians who entered the role not for the public good, but because it serves a benefit to certain sectors, individuals and themselves and their families. They can't have empathy with sectors of society that they don't understand. They think that those who are different or who have problems are in situations of their own making, rather than being individuals whose lives are affected by the decisions and policies that they create and make. They feel they're providing solutions to life's problems when in fact they are the architects of them. The gap between them and us is immense. It'll never change and no amount of education and information will change their views on Joe public and how they view us. UK politics is fucked. Has been for a long time and it won't change. "Absolutely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter." Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc. He's always been out of touch. The vast majority of Tory MP's (and yes, many of other parties too) are and have been for decades. Because they've never lived the life of the average person, never experienced the daily challenges, the financial worries or the work/life balance issued that most of us do on a daily basis. They're career politicians who entered the role not for the public good, but because it serves a benefit to certain sectors, individuals and themselves and their families. They can't have empathy with sectors of society that they don't understand. They think that those who are different or who have problems are in situations of their own making, rather than being individuals whose lives are affected by the decisions and policies that they create and make. They feel they're providing solutions to life's problems when in fact they are the architects of them. The gap between them and us is immense. It'll never change and no amount of education and information will change their views on Joe public and how they view us. UK politics is fucked. Has been for a long time and it won't change. "I thought Sunak did have several jobs outside of politics before becoming an MP. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What was the joke, I only know that Sunak reminded Starmer he couldn't define what a woman was along with other things he had u-turned on in the last year. Starmer went on from that to link that to Brianna Ghey's Mother as she was in attendance. Why did Starmer link it the mother, it was about him, until he deflected it on. " Exactly. How does this mean that Sunak is lacking in empathy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter." One thread was in the lounge but moved here... So let's say two threads, yeah?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars." That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc." arnt most multi millionaires and privately educated ppl out of touch ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. " It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess." Care to tell us what life would be like under another tory government? Or have we exhausted the supply of unicorns - they've been so numerous after all, no? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. Care to tell us what life would be like under another tory government? Or have we exhausted the supply of unicorns - they've been so numerous after all, no?" Why are you asking me? I’ve no intention of voting for another Conservative government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. Care to tell us what life would be like under another tory government? Or have we exhausted the supply of unicorns - they've been so numerous after all, no?" George Galloway sums it up best two cheeks of the same arse | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter." Yep... Have you considered running for PM ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess." That's right. We've got no evidence to suggest Labour will tell us what words we can use. But we can safely assume that this is 100% correct. And absolutely, any policy that will help the environment and will help British people needs to be ridiculed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. " she wasnt murderd for being trans, she was one of a number on there kill list, she was the first becase one of the little shits befriended her, if they had got away with that one they would of moved onto the next, even the judge said the reason wasnt because she was trans, you really do like throwing shit out to see what sticks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. Care to tell us what life would be like under another tory government? Or have we exhausted the supply of unicorns - they've been so numerous after all, no? George Galloway sums it up best two cheeks of the same arse " George is a grifter, nothing more | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. Care to tell us what life would be like under another tory government? Or have we exhausted the supply of unicorns - they've been so numerous after all, no? George Galloway sums it up best two cheeks of the same arse George is a grifter, nothing more " never said he was anything more just that he sumed labour and the tories up best or is he wrong ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. Care to tell us what life would be like under another tory government? Or have we exhausted the supply of unicorns - they've been so numerous after all, no? George Galloway sums it up best two cheeks of the same arse George is a grifter, nothing more never said he was anything more just that he sumed labour and the tories up best or is he wrong ?" The only alternative is the winking brown thingy party then.   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. That's right. We've got no evidence to suggest Labour will tell us what words we can use. But we can safely assume that this is 100% correct. And absolutely, any policy that will help the environment and will help British people needs to be ridiculed. " I’m surprised that you are taking it so well. You are usually hectoring everyone about the need to “follow the science” but it’s okay for Labour not to bother if it costs too much. I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. That's right. We've got no evidence to suggest Labour will tell us what words we can use. But we can safely assume that this is 100% correct. And absolutely, any policy that will help the environment and will help British people needs to be ridiculed. I’m surprised that you are taking it so well. You are usually hectoring everyone about the need to “follow the science” but it’s okay for Labour not to bother if it costs too much. I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all." trusting the science as gone tits up after the bollocks they spat about covid masks social distance and the safty of the vaccines | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess." If the labour didn't quash their original plan, you'd be decrying where they'd get their money from. It's shelved just like the Tories delaying no new petrol/diesel cars. You adapt, delay policies according to the financial climate or other circumstances. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. trusting the science as gone tits up after the bollocks they spat about covid masks social distance and the safty of the vaccines " Covid conspiracy bollocks has its own forum, please use it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. trusting the science as gone tits up after the bollocks they spat about covid masks social distance and the safty of the vaccines Covid conspiracy bollocks has its own forum, please use it." another who’s not seen any of the covid enquiries then lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. trusting the science as gone tits up after the bollocks they spat about covid masks social distance and the safty of the vaccines Covid conspiracy bollocks has its own forum, please use it. another who’s not seen any of the covid enquiries then lol" I’m not getting into vaccine/covid stuff here, but given the information I was given at the time and since by a family member who is a consultant, I’m confident that the vaccine conspiracy folks are as worthy of attention as flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc. He's always been out of touch. The vast majority of Tory MP's (and yes, many of other parties too) are and have been for decades. Because they've never lived the life of the average person, never experienced the daily challenges, the financial worries or the work/life balance issued that most of us do on a daily basis. They're career politicians who entered the role not for the public good, but because it serves a benefit to certain sectors, individuals and themselves and their families. They can't have empathy with sectors of society that they don't understand. They think that those who are different or who have problems are in situations of their own making, rather than being individuals whose lives are affected by the decisions and policies that they create and make. They feel they're providing solutions to life's problems when in fact they are the architects of them. The gap between them and us is immense. It'll never change and no amount of education and information will change their views on Joe public and how they view us. UK politics is fucked. Has been for a long time and it won't change.
I thought Sunak did have several jobs outside of politics before becoming an MP.
"A privately educated from prep school onwards Oxford graduate, who interned for the Conservative Party whilst at Uni, then on to Goldman Sachs and then a partner in a couple of Hedge Fund companies, then married the daughter of a billionaire. Can't see why he can't relate to the average person at all given his background.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc. He's always been out of touch. The vast majority of Tory MP's (and yes, many of other parties too) are and have been for decades. Because they've never lived the life of the average person, never experienced the daily challenges, the financial worries or the work/life balance issued that most of us do on a daily basis. They're career politicians who entered the role not for the public good, but because it serves a benefit to certain sectors, individuals and themselves and their families. They can't have empathy with sectors of society that they don't understand. They think that those who are different or who have problems are in situations of their own making, rather than being individuals whose lives are affected by the decisions and policies that they create and make. They feel they're providing solutions to life's problems when in fact they are the architects of them. The gap between them and us is immense. It'll never change and no amount of education and information will change their views on Joe public and how they view us. UK politics is fucked. Has been for a long time and it won't change.
I thought Sunak did have several jobs outside of politics before becoming an MP.
A privately educated from prep school onwards Oxford graduate, who interned for the Conservative Party whilst at Uni, then on to Goldman Sachs and then a partner in a couple of Hedge Fund companies, then married the daughter of a billionaire.
Can't see why he can't relate to the average person at all given his background. "I never can understand this type of comment, what has his marriage or education got to do with Sunak having empathy? Does the apply to every person who married someone wealthier than themselves or was educated at uni, or is it only tories? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc. He's always been out of touch. The vast majority of Tory MP's (and yes, many of other parties too) are and have been for decades. Because they've never lived the life of the average person, never experienced the daily challenges, the financial worries or the work/life balance issued that most of us do on a daily basis. They're career politicians who entered the role not for the public good, but because it serves a benefit to certain sectors, individuals and themselves and their families. They can't have empathy with sectors of society that they don't understand. They think that those who are different or who have problems are in situations of their own making, rather than being individuals whose lives are affected by the decisions and policies that they create and make. They feel they're providing solutions to life's problems when in fact they are the architects of them. The gap between them and us is immense. It'll never change and no amount of education and information will change their views on Joe public and how they view us. UK politics is fucked. Has been for a long time and it won't change.
I thought Sunak did have several jobs outside of politics before becoming an MP.
A privately educated from prep school onwards Oxford graduate, who interned for the Conservative Party whilst at Uni, then on to Goldman Sachs and then a partner in a couple of Hedge Fund companies, then married the daughter of a billionaire.
Can't see why he can't relate to the average person at all given his background.
I never can understand this type of comment, what has his marriage or education got to do with Sunak having empathy?
Does the apply to every person who married someone wealthier than themselves or was educated at uni, or is it only tories?"how can he or anyone given a similar background hove empathy for the common ppl who are the majority our lives are totally alian to him and his like | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. trusting the science as gone tits up after the bollocks they spat about covid masks social distance and the safty of the vaccines Covid conspiracy bollocks has its own forum, please use it. another who’s not seen any of the covid enquiries then lol I’m not getting into vaccine/covid stuff here, but given the information I was given at the time and since by a family member who is a consultant, I’m confident that the vaccine conspiracy folks are as worthy of attention as flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers." given the information at the time is different to the information we know about now tho not believing the science isn’t conspiracy it’s just that back then it’s turned out to be wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc. He's always been out of touch. The vast majority of Tory MP's (and yes, many of other parties too) are and have been for decades. Because they've never lived the life of the average person, never experienced the daily challenges, the financial worries or the work/life balance issued that most of us do on a daily basis. They're career politicians who entered the role not for the public good, but because it serves a benefit to certain sectors, individuals and themselves and their families. They can't have empathy with sectors of society that they don't understand. They think that those who are different or who have problems are in situations of their own making, rather than being individuals whose lives are affected by the decisions and policies that they create and make. They feel they're providing solutions to life's problems when in fact they are the architects of them. The gap between them and us is immense. It'll never change and no amount of education and information will change their views on Joe public and how they view us. UK politics is fucked. Has been for a long time and it won't change.
I thought Sunak did have several jobs outside of politics before becoming an MP.
A privately educated from prep school onwards Oxford graduate, who interned for the Conservative Party whilst at Uni, then on to Goldman Sachs and then a partner in a couple of Hedge Fund companies, then married the daughter of a billionaire.
Can't see why he can't relate to the average person at all given his background.
I never can understand this type of comment, what has his marriage or education got to do with Sunak having empathy?
Does the apply to every person who married someone wealthier than themselves or was educated at uni, or is it only tories?how can he or anyone given a similar background hove empathy for the common ppl who are the majority our lives are totally alian to him and his like "I was not aware that empathy had rigid boundaries, I assumed by the nature of being empathetic you would have the ability to understand and share the feelings of others... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc. He's always been out of touch. The vast majority of Tory MP's (and yes, many of other parties too) are and have been for decades. Because they've never lived the life of the average person, never experienced the daily challenges, the financial worries or the work/life balance issued that most of us do on a daily basis. They're career politicians who entered the role not for the public good, but because it serves a benefit to certain sectors, individuals and themselves and their families. They can't have empathy with sectors of society that they don't understand. They think that those who are different or who have problems are in situations of their own making, rather than being individuals whose lives are affected by the decisions and policies that they create and make. They feel they're providing solutions to life's problems when in fact they are the architects of them. The gap between them and us is immense. It'll never change and no amount of education and information will change their views on Joe public and how they view us. UK politics is fucked. Has been for a long time and it won't change.
I thought Sunak did have several jobs outside of politics before becoming an MP.
A privately educated from prep school onwards Oxford graduate, who interned for the Conservative Party whilst at Uni, then on to Goldman Sachs and then a partner in a couple of Hedge Fund companies, then married the daughter of a billionaire.
Can't see why he can't relate to the average person at all given his background.
I never can understand this type of comment, what has his marriage or education got to do with Sunak having empathy?
Does the apply to every person who married someone wealthier than themselves or was educated at uni, or is it only tories?"'Empathy. noun The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.' It's a lot easier to understand the feelings of others if you have experienced similar things in life and shared experiences. How much do you think the average politician has in common with Joe public these days? And no. Its not exclusive to Tories, but when you've lived nothing but a life of privilege, with no financial or lifestyle worries from childhood to adulthood and have access to money at a level few will ever see a fraction of? It's not hard to see why many struggle to display empathy for those with vastly differing backgrounds. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. " In what way did he demonise a minority? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc. He's always been out of touch. The vast majority of Tory MP's (and yes, many of other parties too) are and have been for decades. Because they've never lived the life of the average person, never experienced the daily challenges, the financial worries or the work/life balance issued that most of us do on a daily basis. They're career politicians who entered the role not for the public good, but because it serves a benefit to certain sectors, individuals and themselves and their families. They can't have empathy with sectors of society that they don't understand. They think that those who are different or who have problems are in situations of their own making, rather than being individuals whose lives are affected by the decisions and policies that they create and make. They feel they're providing solutions to life's problems when in fact they are the architects of them. The gap between them and us is immense. It'll never change and no amount of education and information will change their views on Joe public and how they view us. UK politics is fucked. Has been for a long time and it won't change.
I thought Sunak did have several jobs outside of politics before becoming an MP.
A privately educated from prep school onwards Oxford graduate, who interned for the Conservative Party whilst at Uni, then on to Goldman Sachs and then a partner in a couple of Hedge Fund companies, then married the daughter of a billionaire.
Can't see why he can't relate to the average person at all given his background.
I never can understand this type of comment, what has his marriage or education got to do with Sunak having empathy?
Does the apply to every person who married someone wealthier than themselves or was educated at uni, or is it only tories?
'Empathy.
noun
The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.'
It's a lot easier to understand the feelings of others if you have experienced similar things in life and shared experiences.
How much do you think the average politician has in common with Joe public these days? And no. Its not exclusive to Tories, but when you've lived nothing but a life of privilege, with no financial or lifestyle worries from childhood to adulthood and have access to money at a level few will ever see a fraction of? It's not hard to see why many struggle to display empathy for those with vastly differing backgrounds. "Understand and share the feelings of others, is all you needed to put as that is empathy. The rest of your post is you assuming people with wealth or a certain upbringing would not be able to have empathy, which is clearly wrong. Wealth and empathy are not mutually exclusive.. Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Bezos Day One Fund | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. That's right. We've got no evidence to suggest Labour will tell us what words we can use. But we can safely assume that this is 100% correct. And absolutely, any policy that will help the environment and will help British people needs to be ridiculed. I’m surprised that you are taking it so well. You are usually hectoring everyone about the need to “follow the science” but it’s okay for Labour not to bother if it costs too much. I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all." 100% agree with you. All your angry ranting has brought me over to your way of thinking. Science isn't real. God controls the weather directly via a USB interface. All the world's so called "scientists" are just in some kind of conspiracy. We need to ensure oil company profits at any cost. Plus bonus points for implied transphobia. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. In what way did he demonise a minority?" I didn't say he did. I was just agreeing with the other chap. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Understand and share the feelings of others, is all you needed to put as that is empathy. The rest of your post is you assuming people with wealth or a certain upbringing would not be able to have empathy, which is clearly wrong. Wealth and empathy are not mutually exclusive.. Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Bezos Day One Fund" Zuckerberg and Bezos donate to charity, yes. Do they have empathy with those with significantly lesser riches? Ask their employees maybe and you'll have your answer. Donating to charitable causes is a great way to offset tax liabilities, generate good PR and distract from often dubious business practices and ethics. Giving money away isn't being empathetic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. That's right. We've got no evidence to suggest Labour will tell us what words we can use. But we can safely assume that this is 100% correct. And absolutely, any policy that will help the environment and will help British people needs to be ridiculed. I’m surprised that you are taking it so well. You are usually hectoring everyone about the need to “follow the science” but it’s okay for Labour not to bother if it costs too much. I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. 100% agree with you. All your angry ranting has brought me over to your way of thinking. Science isn't real. God controls the weather directly via a USB interface. All the world's so called "scientists" are just in some kind of conspiracy. We need to ensure oil company profits at any cost. Plus bonus points for implied transphobia. " but where is my angry ranting is this how anyone with a diffrent opinion to yours is discribed lol where did I say science isn’t real ? Your claim all the worlds scientists is untrue and the main profits where made by big pharma or you unaware of that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc. He's always been out of touch. The vast majority of Tory MP's (and yes, many of other parties too) are and have been for decades. Because they've never lived the life of the average person, never experienced the daily challenges, the financial worries or the work/life balance issued that most of us do on a daily basis. They're career politicians who entered the role not for the public good, but because it serves a benefit to certain sectors, individuals and themselves and their families. They can't have empathy with sectors of society that they don't understand. They think that those who are different or who have problems are in situations of their own making, rather than being individuals whose lives are affected by the decisions and policies that they create and make. They feel they're providing solutions to life's problems when in fact they are the architects of them. The gap between them and us is immense. It'll never change and no amount of education and information will change their views on Joe public and how they view us. UK politics is fucked. Has been for a long time and it won't change.
I thought Sunak did have several jobs outside of politics before becoming an MP.
A privately educated from prep school onwards Oxford graduate, who interned for the Conservative Party whilst at Uni, then on to Goldman Sachs and then a partner in a couple of Hedge Fund companies, then married the daughter of a billionaire.
Can't see why he can't relate to the average person at all given his background.
I never can understand this type of comment, what has his marriage or education got to do with Sunak having empathy?
Does the apply to every person who married someone wealthier than themselves or was educated at uni, or is it only tories?
'Empathy.
noun
The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.'
It's a lot easier to understand the feelings of others if you have experienced similar things in life and shared experiences.
How much do you think the average politician has in common with Joe public these days? And no. Its not exclusive to Tories, but when you've lived nothing but a life of privilege, with no financial or lifestyle worries from childhood to adulthood and have access to money at a level few will ever see a fraction of? It's not hard to see why many struggle to display empathy for those with vastly differing backgrounds.
Understand and share the feelings of others, is all you needed to put as that is empathy. The rest of your post is you assuming people with wealth or a certain upbringing would not be able to have empathy, which is clearly wrong.
Wealth and empathy are not mutually exclusive..
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
Bezos Day One Fund"lol they all made huge profits from covid add to that musk bill gates the list is endless lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc. He's always been out of touch. The vast majority of Tory MP's (and yes, many of other parties too) are and have been for decades. Because they've never lived the life of the average person, never experienced the daily challenges, the financial worries or the work/life balance issued that most of us do on a daily basis. They're career politicians who entered the role not for the public good, but because it serves a benefit to certain sectors, individuals and themselves and their families. They can't have empathy with sectors of society that they don't understand. They think that those who are different or who have problems are in situations of their own making, rather than being individuals whose lives are affected by the decisions and policies that they create and make. They feel they're providing solutions to life's problems when in fact they are the architects of them. The gap between them and us is immense. It'll never change and no amount of education and information will change their views on Joe public and how they view us. UK politics is fucked. Has been for a long time and it won't change.
I thought Sunak did have several jobs outside of politics before becoming an MP.
A privately educated from prep school onwards Oxford graduate, who interned for the Conservative Party whilst at Uni, then on to Goldman Sachs and then a partner in a couple of Hedge Fund companies, then married the daughter of a billionaire.
Can't see why he can't relate to the average person at all given his background.
I never can understand this type of comment, what has his marriage or education got to do with Sunak having empathy?
Does the apply to every person who married someone wealthier than themselves or was educated at uni, or is it only tories?
'Empathy.
noun
The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.'
It's a lot easier to understand the feelings of others if you have experienced similar things in life and shared experiences.
How much do you think the average politician has in common with Joe public these days? And no. Its not exclusive to Tories, but when you've lived nothing but a life of privilege, with no financial or lifestyle worries from childhood to adulthood and have access to money at a level few will ever see a fraction of? It's not hard to see why many struggle to display empathy for those with vastly differing backgrounds.
Understand and share the feelings of others, is all you needed to put as that is empathy. The rest of your post is you assuming people with wealth or a certain upbringing would not be able to have empathy, which is clearly wrong.
Wealth and empathy are not mutually exclusive..
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
Bezos Day One Fund lol they all made huge profits from covid add to that musk bill gates the list is endless lol"And that is called moving the goalposts | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. That's right. We've got no evidence to suggest Labour will tell us what words we can use. But we can safely assume that this is 100% correct. And absolutely, any policy that will help the environment and will help British people needs to be ridiculed. I’m surprised that you are taking it so well. You are usually hectoring everyone about the need to “follow the science” but it’s okay for Labour not to bother if it costs too much. I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. 100% agree with you. All your angry ranting has brought me over to your way of thinking. Science isn't real. God controls the weather directly via a USB interface. All the world's so called "scientists" are just in some kind of conspiracy. We need to ensure oil company profits at any cost. Plus bonus points for implied transphobia. " You’re the one who sounds angry. I guess it’s been a tough day with not even Labour taking the climate emergency seriously. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. In what way did he demonise a minority? I didn't say he did. I was just agreeing with the other chap." Glad you cleared that up.. I guess that you never said he was ripping the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who had there kid murdered either? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. That's right. We've got no evidence to suggest Labour will tell us what words we can use. But we can safely assume that this is 100% correct. And absolutely, any policy that will help the environment and will help British people needs to be ridiculed. I’m surprised that you are taking it so well. You are usually hectoring everyone about the need to “follow the science” but it’s okay for Labour not to bother if it costs too much. I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. 100% agree with you. All your angry ranting has brought me over to your way of thinking. Science isn't real. God controls the weather directly via a USB interface. All the world's so called "scientists" are just in some kind of conspiracy. We need to ensure oil company profits at any cost. Plus bonus points for implied transphobia. but where is my angry ranting is this how anyone with a diffrent opinion to yours is discribed lol where did I say science isn’t real ? Your claim all the worlds scientists is untrue and the main profits where made by big pharma or you unaware of that " I was replying to someone else. Angry rant chap. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. That's right. We've got no evidence to suggest Labour will tell us what words we can use. But we can safely assume that this is 100% correct. And absolutely, any policy that will help the environment and will help British people needs to be ridiculed. I’m surprised that you are taking it so well. You are usually hectoring everyone about the need to “follow the science” but it’s okay for Labour not to bother if it costs too much. I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. 100% agree with you. All your angry ranting has brought me over to your way of thinking. Science isn't real. God controls the weather directly via a USB interface. All the world's so called "scientists" are just in some kind of conspiracy. We need to ensure oil company profits at any cost. Plus bonus points for implied transphobia. You’re the one who sounds angry. I guess it’s been a tough day with not even Labour taking the climate emergency seriously." I was agreeing with everything you said. If that makes me angry too, then so be it. Of course. Labour have finally done the write thing. Rightful written off science in the name of oil company profits. I might vote for them after all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. That's right. We've got no evidence to suggest Labour will tell us what words we can use. But we can safely assume that this is 100% correct. And absolutely, any policy that will help the environment and will help British people needs to be ridiculed. I’m surprised that you are taking it so well. You are usually hectoring everyone about the need to “follow the science” but it’s okay for Labour not to bother if it costs too much. I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. 100% agree with you. All your angry ranting has brought me over to your way of thinking. Science isn't real. God controls the weather directly via a USB interface. All the world's so called "scientists" are just in some kind of conspiracy. We need to ensure oil company profits at any cost. Plus bonus points for implied transphobia. but where is my angry ranting is this how anyone with a diffrent opinion to yours is discribed lol where did I say science isn’t real ? Your claim all the worlds scientists is untrue and the main profits where made by big pharma or you unaware of that I was replying to someone else. Angry rant chap. " ya comedy is shocking fella lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though, this is the 3rd thread at least on this. No wonder the country is in the shitter. Then next thread will be the same people telling us that cancel culture doesn’t exist and the Tories need to stop stoking the culture wars. That's right. The Tories should be able to demonise any minority, and should be allowed to rip the piss out of the transgender community in front of people who have had their kids murdered for being trans with absolutely zero questions asked. Furthermore, we should all log onto forums and hound the shit out of anyone who expects even the most basic standards of decency from our PM. It’s a good insight into what life under a Labour government is going to be like. Daily edicts on what words we can use. Useful distraction from the collapse of Labour’s green policies I guess. That's right. We've got no evidence to suggest Labour will tell us what words we can use. But we can safely assume that this is 100% correct. And absolutely, any policy that will help the environment and will help British people needs to be ridiculed. I’m surprised that you are taking it so well. You are usually hectoring everyone about the need to “follow the science” but it’s okay for Labour not to bother if it costs too much. I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. 100% agree with you. All your angry ranting has brought me over to your way of thinking. Science isn't real. God controls the weather directly via a USB interface. All the world's so called "scientists" are just in some kind of conspiracy. We need to ensure oil company profits at any cost. Plus bonus points for implied transphobia. but where is my angry ranting is this how anyone with a diffrent opinion to yours is discribed lol where did I say science isn’t real ? Your claim all the worlds scientists is untrue and the main profits where made by big pharma or you unaware of that I was replying to someone else. Angry rant chap. ya comedy is shocking fella lol" No comedy, I genuinely replied to the other person. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc. He's always been out of touch. The vast majority of Tory MP's (and yes, many of other parties too) are and have been for decades. Because they've never lived the life of the average person, never experienced the daily challenges, the financial worries or the work/life balance issued that most of us do on a daily basis. They're career politicians who entered the role not for the public good, but because it serves a benefit to certain sectors, individuals and themselves and their families. They can't have empathy with sectors of society that they don't understand. They think that those who are different or who have problems are in situations of their own making, rather than being individuals whose lives are affected by the decisions and policies that they create and make. They feel they're providing solutions to life's problems when in fact they are the architects of them. The gap between them and us is immense. It'll never change and no amount of education and information will change their views on Joe public and how they view us. UK politics is fucked. Has been for a long time and it won't change.
I thought Sunak did have several jobs outside of politics before becoming an MP.
A privately educated from prep school onwards Oxford graduate, who interned for the Conservative Party whilst at Uni, then on to Goldman Sachs and then a partner in a couple of Hedge Fund companies, then married the daughter of a billionaire.
Can't see why he can't relate to the average person at all given his background.
I never can understand this type of comment, what has his marriage or education got to do with Sunak having empathy?
Does the apply to every person who married someone wealthier than themselves or was educated at uni, or is it only tories?
'Empathy.
noun
The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.'
It's a lot easier to understand the feelings of others if you have experienced similar things in life and shared experiences.
How much do you think the average politician has in common with Joe public these days? And no. Its not exclusive to Tories, but when you've lived nothing but a life of privilege, with no financial or lifestyle worries from childhood to adulthood and have access to money at a level few will ever see a fraction of? It's not hard to see why many struggle to display empathy for those with vastly differing backgrounds. "I have never lived or even been to Garza,and although in the UK I'm just a standard rate tax payer, from what I understand of their lives even before the latest trouble, I am much better of than them in most respects. I have never experienced their life at all. A bit like rich people in the UK are better off than me and have not experienced my life. So with this big difference in life experience between those in Garza and myself I still have empathy for their plight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. trusting the science as gone tits up after the bollocks they spat about covid masks social distance and the safty of the vaccines Covid conspiracy bollocks has its own forum, please use it. another who’s not seen any of the covid enquiries then lol I’m not getting into vaccine/covid stuff here, but given the information I was given at the time and since by a family member who is a consultant, I’m confident that the vaccine conspiracy folks are as worthy of attention as flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers.given the information at the time is different to the information we know about now tho not believing the science isn’t conspiracy it’s just that back then it’s turned out to be wrong " I am glad I didn't "Trust in the science" back then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc." . How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience " Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition." What was transphobic that he said? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said?" "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL " Give him credit he can at least define an anti semite. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL Give him credit he can at least define an anti semite." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL Give him credit he can at least define an anti semite." I won't be surprised they'll add "Defining a woman" to the definition of antisemitic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I guess it’s not such a climate crisis after all. trusting the science as gone tits up after the bollocks they spat about covid masks social distance and the safty of the vaccines Covid conspiracy bollocks has its own forum, please use it. another who’s not seen any of the covid enquiries then lol I’m not getting into vaccine/covid stuff here, but given the information I was given at the time and since by a family member who is a consultant, I’m confident that the vaccine conspiracy folks are as worthy of attention as flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers.given the information at the time is different to the information we know about now tho not believing the science isn’t conspiracy it’s just that back then it’s turned out to be wrong " What's turned out to be wrong? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience " Apparently he was told before he gobbed off. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL " It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary."It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman" You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable? In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Apparently he was told before he gobbed off. " However, Brianna's mum wasn't in the public gallery, she was in the building but had been in a meeting and missed the first few minutes of PMQs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous "When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL Give him credit he can at least define an anti semite. I won't be surprised they'll add "Defining a woman" to the definition of antisemitic " Why so ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff."A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
"My point! Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others."You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition. Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition."I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule. Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer. However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing. As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition."Incorrect | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
"To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult). And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans."I did think about that pedantry. I'm using man to cover all ages, to simplify the discussion. She would have become a man at 18, and in practice, age doesn't tend to drive decisions on changing rooms etc. Where definitions actually matter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.
Incorrect" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans."It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition " In the context of politics, "what is a woman?" is not a question. It honestly doesn't deserve a direct answer. It deserves, "You aren't really looking for a definition, are you? Just come out and ask what you really mean to say, don't mince words,". If not the above, the one answering is free to read under the question and give their identity politics answer, however flippant. That goes for all sides of the equation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition In the context of politics, "what is a woman?" is not a question. It honestly doesn't deserve a direct answer. It deserves, "You aren't really looking for a definition, are you? Just come out and ask what you really mean to say, don't mince words,". If not the above, the one answering is free to read under the question and give their identity politics answer, however flippant. That goes for all sides of the equation." That would require a backbone, and it is not just politicians either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
"It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition In the context of politics, "what is a woman?" is not a question. It honestly doesn't deserve a direct answer. It deserves, "You aren't really looking for a definition, are you? Just come out and ask what you really mean to say, don't mince words,". If not the above, the one answering is free to read under the question and give their identity politics answer, however flippant. That goes for all sides of the equation." Which means both Sunak's and starmer's responses were adequate. Which means the mockery and indecision insinuations were rather pathetic. Who knew | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman."Define "Legally" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman."I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman."It’s a ‘legal fiction’ (fictio legis). A man with a gender recognition certificate could be legally defined as a woman. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports."You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman? "Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
It’s a ‘legal fiction’ (fictio legis). A man with a gender recognition certificate could be legally defined as a woman. "If you have a birth certificate you are a legal fiction anyway, a means of identifying you legally. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman."You are missing a most important point, again... I did not say man or woman, those words have been taken and the goalposts moved to say a man / woman can be xyz based on an argument that it is social construct and as such can be changed. What can't be changed is male or female, a male or female is not interchangeable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see."I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd. Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word. Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out. "Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?"Yes. Unless someone has an agenda to fuck up the social order and common sense. They they play word games and mess with people's sanity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
Yes. Unless someone has an agenda to fuck up the social order and common sense. They they play word games and mess with people's sanity. "Oh dear. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?"The dictionary definition of gender is "the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female." Is it wrong ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?"I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary "Language evolves, does it not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?"Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place. If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law. "So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they? I don’t have a particular dog in this fight, I go back and forth, but am intrigued to hear others opinions . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they?
"That's like asking: What if the sun becomes the moon legally? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out. "I see this and think of the Rwanda scheme. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they?
That's like asking: What if the sun becomes the moon legally? "Looks like we're evolving back to being apes. HomoNOTSapians | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they?
That's like asking: What if the sun becomes the moon legally? "It’s not though, and I think you know that. Let’s change the wording and see if I get a sensible response: what if someone transitions to the other gender, what, legally are they? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they?
That's like asking: What if the sun becomes the moon legally?
Looks like we're evolving back to being apes. HomoNOTSapians"But again even Apes are sapian enough to know there are only 2 genders in their community. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they?
That's like asking: What if the sun becomes the moon legally?
Looks like we're evolving back to being apes. HomoNOTSapians
But again even Apes are sapian enough to know there are only 2 genders in their community. "F&F linked to an article that then linked to Nature saying scientists are starting to talk about a spectrum. I don't know enough about this subject to state anything definitely. But my general feeling is scientists tend to be ahead of the curve on understanding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
Define "Legally" "Certification | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they?
That's like asking: What if the sun becomes the moon legally?
It’s not though, and I think you know that.
Let’s change the wording and see if I get a sensible response: what if someone transitions to the other gender, what, legally are they?"Same question same response. We got rid of the God of the Bible just to replace him with insane politicians as our gods. They can make a law that Identifies the Sun as fully transitioned to become a moon. That makes the Sun a moon legally. Only thing you achieve is turning a whole country into a mental institution | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary "You probably wouldn't have found drone as in UAV but they do exist | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they?
That's like asking: What if the sun becomes the moon legally?
It’s not though, and I think you know that.
Let’s change the wording and see if I get a sensible response: what if someone transitions to the other gender, what, legally are they?
Same question same response. We got rid of the God of the Bible just to replace him with insane politicians as our gods.
They can make a law that Identifies the Sun as fully transitioned to become a moon. That makes the Sun a moon legally.
Only thing you achieve is turning a whole country into a mental institution "Ok, let’s rewind a bit here. Do you accept that gender affirming surgery is a thing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you take two wheels off a car does it become a motorbike ? Just a random thought" We have three wheeled motorbikes and three wheeled cars, too | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
Define "Legally"
Certification "So if an insane group of Politicians are paid to give a certification/a Law that identifies the Sun as the moon, you bring your solar panels at night and direct them to the moon? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
You are missing a most important point, again...
I did not say man or woman, those words have been taken and the goalposts moved to say a man / woman can be xyz based on an argument that it is social construct and as such can be changed.
What can't be changed is male or female, a male or female is not interchangeable. "You're funny AND missing the point. If I didn't find it funny it'd be tedious. The whole point is what is a woman (NOT what is a female). And although the terminology is interchangeable, making biological sex Vs gender more confusing than it has to be, when there's inclusion of trans, it has to be gender. Therefore the point is about gender. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
Yes. Unless someone has an agenda to fuck up the social order and common sense. They they play word games and mess with people's sanity. "Psychology! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary "Countdown | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they?
That's like asking: What if the sun becomes the moon legally?
It’s not though, and I think you know that.
Let’s change the wording and see if I get a sensible response: what if someone transitions to the other gender, what, legally are they?
Same question same response. We got rid of the God of the Bible just to replace him with insane politicians as our gods.
They can make a law that Identifies the Sun as fully transitioned to become a moon. That makes the Sun a moon legally.
Only thing you achieve is turning a whole country into a mental institution
Ok, let’s rewind a bit here.
Do you accept that gender affirming surgery is a thing?
"That's the mentally vaccinated terminology of it. The mentally sane proper terminology would be body/genital mutilation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?"Very much so. Watch an episode of countdown and you become informed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they?
That's like asking: What if the sun becomes the moon legally?
It’s not though, and I think you know that.
Let’s change the wording and see if I get a sensible response: what if someone transitions to the other gender, what, legally are they?
Same question same response. We got rid of the God of the Bible just to replace him with insane politicians as our gods.
They can make a law that Identifies the Sun as fully transitioned to become a moon. That makes the Sun a moon legally.
Only thing you achieve is turning a whole country into a mental institution
Ok, let’s rewind a bit here.
Do you accept that gender affirming surgery is a thing?
That's the mentally vaccinated terminology of it. The mentally sane proper terminology would be body/genital mutilation. "But you accept that it exists, correct? In which case, how does one refer to a person who has undergone it, legally? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
Define "Legally"
Certification
So if an insane group of Politicians are paid to give a certification/a Law that identifies the Sun as the moon, you bring your solar panels at night and direct them to the moon? "We can call the sun and moon A and B, if we want to, what we can't change is the sun is a star made of gasses and the moon is a satellite and predominantly rock. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law. "Actually language evolves by common use not the minority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority."This insanity is not common use by any stretch of the imagination. It's cultural insane fascism at it's peak | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know, this topic when discussed on a public forum really does come across as a Monty Python sketch. We can't even follow what points people are trying to make anymore." The first thing that everyone needs to accept is that trans-people exist, have always existed (even if the surgeries possible are new) and aren’t going anywhere. What we then need to do is create an environment where trans-people and non-trans alike are comfortable and feel safe at all times. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
This insanity is not common use by any stretch of the imagination. It's cultural insane fascism at it's peak"So you know more than Susie Dent on countdown? Politicians have no say in how dictionaries are updated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know, this topic when discussed on a public forum really does come across as a Monty Python sketch. We can't even follow what points people are trying to make anymore. The first thing that everyone needs to accept is that trans-people exist, have always existed (even if the surgeries possible are new) and aren’t going anywhere. What we then need to do is create an environment where trans-people and non-trans alike are comfortable and feel safe at all times. " Ah, that makes sense now. You can't force someone to join a religion, or a political party, or a charity, or to work somewhere they don't want. Yet it's perfectly fine and sane to force people to use terms they don't agree with? There are quite a lot of two word sentences that are best suited for that attitude, and most of them end with 'off'. Its the lack of compromise that turns people off and sees those views as fringe and really rather toxic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know, this topic when discussed on a public forum really does come across as a Monty Python sketch. We can't even follow what points people are trying to make anymore. The first thing that everyone needs to accept is that trans-people exist, have always existed (even if the surgeries possible are new) and aren’t going anywhere. What we then need to do is create an environment where trans-people and non-trans alike are comfortable and feel safe at all times. Ah, that makes sense now. You can't force someone to join a religion, or a political party, or a charity, or to work somewhere they don't want. Yet it's perfectly fine and sane to force people to use terms they don't agree with? There are quite a lot of two word sentences that are best suited for that attitude, and most of them end with 'off'. Its the lack of compromise that turns people off and sees those views as fringe and really rather toxic." I’d be intrigued to hear your solution, and indeed your level of compromise. Note that I made no specific suggestions (for I am not trans and don’t know the problems that trans people face, nor am I a woman, and so don’t know their exact fears concerns) I only gave an end goal that we should strive for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority."If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know, this topic when discussed on a public forum really does come across as a Monty Python sketch. We can't even follow what points people are trying to make anymore. The first thing that everyone needs to accept is that trans-people exist, have always existed (even if the surgeries possible are new) and aren’t going anywhere. What we then need to do is create an environment where trans-people and non-trans alike are comfortable and feel safe at all times. Ah, that makes sense now. You can't force someone to join a religion, or a political party, or a charity, or to work somewhere they don't want. Yet it's perfectly fine and sane to force people to use terms they don't agree with? There are quite a lot of two word sentences that are best suited for that attitude, and most of them end with 'off'. Its the lack of compromise that turns people off and sees those views as fringe and really rather toxic." Wow that is definitely not empathy. The person in front of you looks like a man and the preferred pronouns are she/her. You, being non empathic find it toxic to call this person anything other than he/him. You then discover the person is biologically female. What then? Wtf is it to you re pronouns, just use the person's name or the non gender specific they/them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect "You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect "What is your obsession with Jews? Seriously, why does everything come back to Jews for you? Whether it's world eating cabals or trans rights, What's your obsession? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries "Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in. Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands"Are you on drugs? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you take two wheels off a car does it become a motorbike ? Just a random thought We have three wheeled motorbikes and three wheeled cars, too "But they are legally tricycles, not cars or motorbikes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands"I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories as I have nothing to gain here. And I'd like to keep my sanity and empathy  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they?
That's like asking: What if the sun becomes the moon legally?
It’s not though, and I think you know that.
Let’s change the wording and see if I get a sensible response: what if someone transitions to the other gender, what, legally are they?
Same question same response. We got rid of the God of the Bible just to replace him with insane politicians as our gods.
They can make a law that Identifies the Sun as fully transitioned to become a moon. That makes the Sun a moon legally.
Only thing you achieve is turning a whole country into a mental institution
Ok, let’s rewind a bit here.
Do you accept that gender affirming surgery is a thing?
That's the mentally vaccinated terminology of it. The mentally sane proper terminology would be body/genital mutilation.
But you accept that it exists, correct?
In which case, how does one refer to a person who has undergone it, legally? "Well if it was a man who legally underwent surgery then he would be a trans woman, he wouldn't be a woman. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they?
That's like asking: What if the sun becomes the moon legally?
It’s not though, and I think you know that.
Let’s change the wording and see if I get a sensible response: what if someone transitions to the other gender, what, legally are they?
Same question same response. We got rid of the God of the Bible just to replace him with insane politicians as our gods.
They can make a law that Identifies the Sun as fully transitioned to become a moon. That makes the Sun a moon legally.
Only thing you achieve is turning a whole country into a mental institution
Ok, let’s rewind a bit here.
Do you accept that gender affirming surgery is a thing?
That's the mentally vaccinated terminology of it. The mentally sane proper terminology would be body/genital mutilation.
But you accept that it exists, correct?
In which case, how does one refer to a person who has undergone it, legally?
Well if it was a man who legally underwent surgery then he would be a trans woman, he wouldn't be a woman.
"I tend to agree (some others would say the person would be a woman). But accepting this person is trans is the first stage to now working out how we treat trans folk. But we’ll never reach that stage unless we’re all willing to accept trans-people as just that - people | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
So if someone transitions to the other sex (fully transitions), then what, legally are they?
That's like asking: What if the sun becomes the moon legally?
It’s not though, and I think you know that.
Let’s change the wording and see if I get a sensible response: what if someone transitions to the other gender, what, legally are they?
Same question same response. We got rid of the God of the Bible just to replace him with insane politicians as our gods.
They can make a law that Identifies the Sun as fully transitioned to become a moon. That makes the Sun a moon legally.
Only thing you achieve is turning a whole country into a mental institution
Ok, let’s rewind a bit here.
Do you accept that gender affirming surgery is a thing?
That's the mentally vaccinated terminology of it. The mentally sane proper terminology would be body/genital mutilation.
But you accept that it exists, correct?
In which case, how does one refer to a person who has undergone it, legally?
Well if it was a man who legally underwent surgery then he would be a trans woman, he wouldn't be a woman.
I tend to agree (some others would say the person would be a woman).
But accepting this person is trans is the first stage to now working out how we treat trans folk. But we’ll never reach that stage unless we’re all willing to accept trans-people as just that - people"Absolutely | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories as I have nothing to gain here. And I'd like to keep my sanity and empathy "Someone pulled the card of "Jew hater" and you're pulling the card of "Conspiracy theorist" When your position is proven wrong. Just shoot the messenger. It's the opposite of sanity to call a man woman. Or call the sea land, or call the Sun moon. Legally or not. It's still insanity | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories as I have nothing to gain here. And I'd like to keep my sanity and empathy
Someone pulled the card of "Jew hater" and you're pulling the card of "Conspiracy theorist" When your position is proven wrong. Just shoot the messenger.
It's the opposite of sanity to call a man woman. Or call the sea land, or call the Sun moon. Legally or not. It's still insanity
"So you’re comfortable calling someone a trans-woman, or trans-man, correct? (There’s no right or wrong answer, just trying to move the convo along) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
Are you on drugs? "Don't you call out people who suggest people may have been posting under the influence of drink, what makes this any different? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
Are you on drugs?
Don't you call out people who suggest people may have been posting under the influence of drink, what makes this any different?
"Because I’m struggling to understand why else someone would post such conspiratorial nonsense. Obviously the poster may not be on drugs, which is why I asked the question. Unlike some on here, who rather than asking ‘have you been drinking’, prefer to simply assume that they’re d*unk. Hope that helps  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
Are you on drugs? "No. Are you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
Are you on drugs? "Hang on a minute… I wonder who said this? I called out another poster for this shit. It’s a bad look. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
Are you on drugs?
No. Are you? "No, I’ve never touched drugs (other than caffeine and alcohol) in my life. I was trying to ascertain a reason for your posting such abstract conspiracy nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
Are you on drugs?
Hang on a minute… I wonder who said this?
I called out another poster for this shit. It’s a bad look.
"Is it better or worse than accusing people of being friends of Epstein because you don’t like trans-folk? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories as I have nothing to gain here. And I'd like to keep my sanity and empathy
Someone pulled the card of "Jew hater" and you're pulling the card of "Conspiracy theorist" When your position is proven wrong. Just shoot the messenger.
It's the opposite of sanity to call a man woman. Or call the sea land, or call the Sun moon. Legally or not. It's still insanity
"If you put trans in front of the woman or man, this should pacify you, it is not calling them men or woman directly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories as I have nothing to gain here. And I'd like to keep my sanity and empathy
Someone pulled the card of "Jew hater" and you're pulling the card of "Conspiracy theorist" When your position is proven wrong. Just shoot the messenger.
It's the opposite of sanity to call a man woman. Or call the sea land, or call the Sun moon. Legally or not. It's still insanity
If you put trans in front of the woman or man, this should pacify you, it is not calling them men or woman directly.
"This is the first stage that we all need to get to, only then can we discuss where trans-people fit in society re: toilets, changing facilities etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
Are you on drugs?
No. Are you?
No, I’ve never touched drugs (other than caffeine and alcohol) in my life.
I was trying to ascertain a reason for your posting such abstract conspiracy nonsense. ""Jew hater" "Conspiracy theorist" "You're on drugs" It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
Are you on drugs?
No. Are you?
No, I’ve never touched drugs (other than caffeine and alcohol) in my life.
I was trying to ascertain a reason for your posting such abstract conspiracy nonsense.
"Jew hater"
"Conspiracy theorist"
"You're on drugs"
It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually "It’s impossible to refute because you haven’t actually answered anything yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
Are you on drugs?
"Jew hater"
"Conspiracy theorist"
"You're on drugs"
It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually "Who called you a Jew hater on this thread? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually " Let’s draw a line under all of the above and answer one simple question. Do you accept the existence of trans-people? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
Are you on drugs?
"Jew hater"
"Conspiracy theorist"
"You're on drugs"
It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually
Who called you a Jew hater on this thread?"The one whose asking the question lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories as I have nothing to gain here. And I'd like to keep my sanity and empathy
Someone pulled the card of "Jew hater" and you're pulling the card of "Conspiracy theorist" When your position is proven wrong. Just shoot the messenger.
It's the opposite of sanity to call a man woman. Or call the sea land, or call the Sun moon. Legally or not. It's still insanity
If you put trans in front of the woman or man, this should pacify you, it is not calling them men or woman directly.
This is the first stage that we all need to get to, only then can we discuss where trans-people fit in society re: toilets, changing facilities etc."That is as far as it goes for me. A Male cannot be a Female, it is biologically not possible to change. Male and Female is not a social construct that can be changed like man and woman, just like 1KG or 1 minute, we need solid factual rules for us to be able to communicate effectively globally. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually Let’s draw a line under all of the above and answer one simple question. Do you accept the existence of trans-people?" You're question is ambiguous. If you mean do I believe there are cross dressers out there? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be the opposite gender? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be an Eagle? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories as I have nothing to gain here. And I'd like to keep my sanity and empathy
Someone pulled the card of "Jew hater" and you're pulling the card of "Conspiracy theorist" When your position is proven wrong. Just shoot the messenger.
It's the opposite of sanity to call a man woman. Or call the sea land, or call the Sun moon. Legally or not. It's still insanity
If you put trans in front of the woman or man, this should pacify you, it is not calling them men or woman directly.
This is the first stage that we all need to get to, only then can we discuss where trans-people fit in society re: toilets, changing facilities etc.
That is as far as it goes for me.
A Male cannot be a Female, it is biologically not possible to change. Male and Female is not a social construct that can be changed like man and woman, just like 1KG or 1 minute, we need solid factual rules for us to be able to communicate effectively globally.
"So trans-women should use men’s toilets and vice versa? It’s a valid viewpoint, though I suspect it would place the trans-person in more danger than if they were allowed to use women’s facilities. There’s no easy answer here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually Let’s draw a line under all of the above and answer one simple question. Do you accept the existence of trans-people? You're question is ambiguous. If you mean do I believe there are cross dressers out there? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be the opposite gender? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be an Eagle? " My question was not ambiguous, though I can see why you’d want to claim it as such to avoid an answer, given your output so far on this thread. If someone had gender affirming surgery, what are they afterwards? Same gender or different? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "Jew hater" "Conspiracy theorist" "You're on drugs" It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually Who called you a Jew hater on this thread? The one whose asking the question lol" You mean here? "If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect " What is your obsession with Jews? Seriously, why does everything come back to Jews for you? Whether it's world eating cabals or trans rights, What's your obsession? " The question is: why are you obsessed. Not a statement that you necessarily hate Jews. Bringing anti-Semitism in as a non-sequitur is just... weird. Like bringing Zionist cabals into other discussions. Perhaps if you took the time to read, listen, internalise and try to understand others, then others would be able to understand you and your message a little better? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually Let’s draw a line under all of the above and answer one simple question. Do you accept the existence of trans-people? You're question is ambiguous. If you mean do I believe there are cross dressers out there? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be the opposite gender? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be an Eagle? My question was not ambiguous, though I can see why you’d want to claim it as such to avoid an answer, given your output so far on this thread. If someone had gender affirming surgery, what are they afterwards? Same gender or different? " If a man mutilated his body to appear like a woman. He is just that. A mutilated man | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories as I have nothing to gain here. And I'd like to keep my sanity and empathy
Someone pulled the card of "Jew hater" and you're pulling the card of "Conspiracy theorist" When your position is proven wrong. Just shoot the messenger.
It's the opposite of sanity to call a man woman. Or call the sea land, or call the Sun moon. Legally or not. It's still insanity
If you put trans in front of the woman or man, this should pacify you, it is not calling them men or woman directly.
This is the first stage that we all need to get to, only then can we discuss where trans-people fit in society re: toilets, changing facilities etc.
That is as far as it goes for me.
A Male cannot be a Female, it is biologically not possible to change. Male and Female is not a social construct that can be changed like man and woman, just like 1KG or 1 minute, we need solid factual rules for us to be able to communicate effectively globally.
So trans-women should use men’s toilets and vice versa?
It’s a valid viewpoint, though I suspect it would place the trans-person in more danger than if they were allowed to use women’s facilities.
There’s no easy answer here."It is for Females to decide if they want trans woman in their toilets, and to not feel bullied into saying yes or no, but I don't see why this a problem when a mixed use toilet could be made available to use by anyone of any sex. Or make the toilets male only or female only. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories as I have nothing to gain here. And I'd like to keep my sanity and empathy
Someone pulled the card of "Jew hater" and you're pulling the card of "Conspiracy theorist" When your position is proven wrong. Just shoot the messenger.
It's the opposite of sanity to call a man woman. Or call the sea land, or call the Sun moon. Legally or not. It's still insanity
If you put trans in front of the woman or man, this should pacify you, it is not calling them men or woman directly.
This is the first stage that we all need to get to, only then can we discuss where trans-people fit in society re: toilets, changing facilities etc.
That is as far as it goes for me.
A Male cannot be a Female, it is biologically not possible to change. Male and Female is not a social construct that can be changed like man and woman, just like 1KG or 1 minute, we need solid factual rules for us to be able to communicate effectively globally.
So trans-women should use men’s toilets and vice versa?
It’s a valid viewpoint, though I suspect it would place the trans-person in more danger than if they were allowed to use women’s facilities.
There’s no easy answer here."You can call them men women facilities but others use the same facilities that are not classed as a man or woman, a child is not an adult and should not be put in the category of an adult, men's toilet, women's changing room the same with sport, they should be classed as male and female to be inclusive to children. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually Let’s draw a line under all of the above and answer one simple question. Do you accept the existence of trans-people? You're question is ambiguous. If you mean do I believe there are cross dressers out there? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be the opposite gender? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be an Eagle? My question was not ambiguous, though I can see why you’d want to claim it as such to avoid an answer, given your output so far on this thread. If someone had gender affirming surgery, what are they afterwards? Same gender or different? If a man mutilated his body to appear like a woman. He is just that. A mutilated man " And as such you’ve denied the very existence of trans-folk. Finally, some honesty at least. I will withdraw from the conversation, because if I said what I’d like to say, I’d get another ban. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories as I have nothing to gain here. And I'd like to keep my sanity and empathy
Someone pulled the card of "Jew hater" and you're pulling the card of "Conspiracy theorist" When your position is proven wrong. Just shoot the messenger.
It's the opposite of sanity to call a man woman. Or call the sea land, or call the Sun moon. Legally or not. It's still insanity
If you put trans in front of the woman or man, this should pacify you, it is not calling them men or woman directly.
This is the first stage that we all need to get to, only then can we discuss where trans-people fit in society re: toilets, changing facilities etc.
That is as far as it goes for me.
A Male cannot be a Female, it is biologically not possible to change. Male and Female is not a social construct that can be changed like man and woman, just like 1KG or 1 minute, we need solid factual rules for us to be able to communicate effectively globally.
So trans-women should use men’s toilets and vice versa?
It’s a valid viewpoint, though I suspect it would place the trans-person in more danger than if they were allowed to use women’s facilities.
There’s no easy answer here.
It is for Females to decide if they want trans woman in their toilets, and to not feel bullied into saying yes or no, but I don't see why this a problem when a mixed use toilet could be made available to use by anyone of any sex. Or make the toilets male only or female only.
"Mixed facilities are the easiest answer, not not all are happy with that. I think it’s probably how things will end though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually Let’s draw a line under all of the above and answer one simple question. Do you accept the existence of trans-people? You're question is ambiguous. If you mean do I believe there are cross dressers out there? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be the opposite gender? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be an Eagle? My question was not ambiguous, though I can see why you’d want to claim it as such to avoid an answer, given your output so far on this thread. If someone had gender affirming surgery, what are they afterwards? Same gender or different? If a man mutilated his body to appear like a woman. He is just that. A mutilated man And as such you’ve denied the very existence of trans-folk. Finally, some honesty at least. I will withdraw from the conversation, because if I said what I’d like to say, I’d get another ban. " I didn't deny them existence. I just call a spade a spade. That's hardly denying the spade exists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually Let’s draw a line under all of the above and answer one simple question. Do you accept the existence of trans-people? You're question is ambiguous. If you mean do I believe there are cross dressers out there? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be the opposite gender? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be an Eagle? My question was not ambiguous, though I can see why you’d want to claim it as such to avoid an answer, given your output so far on this thread. If someone had gender affirming surgery, what are they afterwards? Same gender or different? If a man mutilated his body to appear like a woman. He is just that. A mutilated man And as such you’ve denied the very existence of trans-folk. Finally, some honesty at least. I will withdraw from the conversation, because if I said what I’d like to say, I’d get another ban. I didn't deny them existence. I just call a spade a spade. That's hardly denying the spade exists. " You said a man undergoing gender affirming surgery is still a man. That’s denying the existence of trans-women. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's just cards pulled by people incapable to refute someone they disagree with. I am flattered actually Let’s draw a line under all of the above and answer one simple question. Do you accept the existence of trans-people? You're question is ambiguous. If you mean do I believe there are cross dressers out there? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be the opposite gender? Yes they exist. Are there people who wish to be an Eagle? My question was not ambiguous, though I can see why you’d want to claim it as such to avoid an answer, given your output so far on this thread. If someone had gender affirming surgery, what are they afterwards? Same gender or different? If a man mutilated his body to appear like a woman. He is just that. A mutilated man " What a bizarre comment from someone on a sexually liberated swinging site. Makes you wonder | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories as I have nothing to gain here. And I'd like to keep my sanity and empathy
Someone pulled the card of "Jew hater" and you're pulling the card of "Conspiracy theorist" When your position is proven wrong. Just shoot the messenger.
It's the opposite of sanity to call a man woman. Or call the sea land, or call the Sun moon. Legally or not. It's still insanity
If you put trans in front of the woman or man, this should pacify you, it is not calling them men or woman directly.
This is the first stage that we all need to get to, only then can we discuss where trans-people fit in society re: toilets, changing facilities etc.
That is as far as it goes for me.
A Male cannot be a Female, it is biologically not possible to change. Male and Female is not a social construct that can be changed like man and woman, just like 1KG or 1 minute, we need solid factual rules for us to be able to communicate effectively globally.
So trans-women should use men’s toilets and vice versa?
It’s a valid viewpoint, though I suspect it would place the trans-person in more danger than if they were allowed to use women’s facilities.
There’s no easy answer here.
It is for Females to decide if they want trans woman in their toilets, and to not feel bullied into saying yes or no, but I don't see why this a problem when a mixed use toilet could be made available to use by anyone of any sex. Or make the toilets male only or female only.
Mixed facilities are the easiest answer, not not all are happy with that. I think it’s probably how things will end though. "Male, Female, disabled/trans | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What a bizarre comment from someone on a sexually liberated swinging site. Makes you wonder" Try the green arrow. It's a real rabbit hole. Abortion is murder. Sex education is grooming. Cosmetic surgery for women is mutilation. Feminism is killing society. Marriage is doomed because women think they're equal and do not want to be dominated. It's... Enlightening? Entertaining? Who knows. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
Are you on drugs? "What's going on man? It's not like you to be hypocritical | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yesterday in PMQs the Conservative Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, made a joke about trans issues while the mother of murdered trans girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. After already betting a thousand quid in an interview with Mrs Doubtfire cosplayer, Piers Morgan, is the Prime Minister out of touch and completely lacking in empathy. What's going on guys etc.. How would the pm know who was present in the public gallery. ? She would just be one of msny people. I am sure that he has bettar things to do with his life than check who might be present in the public gallery . We pay the pm to run the country , not waste time checking who is in the audience Exactly, he's got more important things to do, like ask passively transphobic questions to the leader of the opposition. What was transphobic that he said? "Kier is unable to define a woman" LOL It was the mocking reference to SKS' 99.9% of women don't have have penis. What is laughable is Sunak's definition of a woman. Namely a woman is a woman. And this guy is the PM .
I suppose a man is a man. And an elephant is an elephant. He should write a dictionary.
It's obvious "A woman is a woman" he used it short for his previous affirmative answer to that question: "A woman is a biological woman"
You don't think Sister-KS statement of "99.9% of women don't have a penis" is laughable?
In my opinion it deserves Guinness record of the ridiculous
When defining something, you do NOT use the word within the definition! This is primary school stuff.
A woman is a woman is a declarative sentence, it does not provide a definition
My point!
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or in this case, mock others.
You were mocking the formation of what you thought was a definition.
Sunak was mocking a persons indecision over their definition.I don't recall his exact statement, but the 99pc numbers shows a belief that there maybe be exceptions to a rule.
Imo Sunak wasn't intending to make any direct statement about transgender, however was using the definition thing as a way of scoring points against Starmer.
However that was time deaf given who could have been viewing.
As I've said before, as much as I may disagree with some on definitions etc, Id respect someone saying that under their dedonition they would class Briana as a man, and therefore would have expected her to have used the mens toilets and changing rooms, and be excluded from women's safe spaces.
To be pendantic Brianna was not a man (a male human adult).
And yes 99.9% isn't an indecision, it allows for intersex and trans.
It is indecision, unless he believes males can become female.
It is NOT indecision because legally, a man can become a woman.
I think the majority accept and believe that like I do, but what I do not agree with is males infringing on/in female designated area's like toilets, changing rooms and sports.
You got any statistics confirming that the majority has gone insane to believe a man can become a woman?
Are you confusing sex and gender, sex is inside gender persona is what you see.
I think you're trashing your own sanity to fit it with the herd.
Gender is just another word for sex without using the S word.
Changing the meaning of the words and changing the law, doesn't change facts. If other people (Lawmakers or not) can make you believe that a man can become a woman they can also make you believe a duck can become a horse. Open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.
Are you saying sex and gender are the same thing?
The dictionary definition of gender is
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Is it wrong ?
I wonder who added that last bit of "Identities" and when. You wouldn't find find that in a 2000 dictionary
Language evolves, does it not?
Evolution is a natural organic phenomena. If the language of the tiny mentally unstable minority is imposed on the 99% by law and Politicians changing the dictionary. We're not progressing toward a good place.
If you make a hole on the titanic. You may call it an artistic work. Or progress. Or evolving. But it's not gonna end well when insanity becomes law.
Actually language evolves by common use not the minority.
If it were common use, you wouldn't need policing the majority and making every worker sign a piece of paper to force them to use the new dictionary definitions or else losing their likelihood. Or having the Police arresting you for violating the new definition of Antisemitism ect ect
You're confused. We're discussing dictionary entries
Yes we are. I am not confused. The meanings of words are being debated and decided in Parliament. Universities that change the meanings of words in dictionaries are being funded and lobbied by parties with Political agendas. And people are being policed to force them to appropriate words to meanings they don't believe in.
Language is not evolving organically. The change of meanings is pushed down the throats of people without consent. By Politicians and whoever behind the scenes is paying or bla*kmailing them after visiting Epstein's or Jimmy Savile Islands
I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories as I have nothing to gain here. And I'd like to keep my sanity and empathy
Someone pulled the card of "Jew hater" and you're pulling the card of "Conspiracy theorist" When your position is proven wrong. Just shoot the messenger.
It's the opposite of sanity to call a man woman. Or call the sea land, or call the Sun moon. Legally or not. It's still insanity
If you put trans in front of the woman or man, this should pacify you, it is not calling them men or woman directly.
This is the first stage that we all need to get to, only then can we discuss where trans-people fit in society re: toilets, changing facilities etc.
That is as far as it goes for me.
A Male cannot be a Female, it is biologically not possible to change. Male and Female is not a social construct that can be changed like man and woman, just like 1KG or 1 minute, we need solid factual rules for us to be able to communicate effectively globally.
So trans-women should use men’s toilets and vice versa?
It’s a valid viewpoint, though I suspect it would place the trans-person in more danger than if they were allowed to use women’s facilities.
There’s no easy answer here.
It is for Females to decide if they want trans woman in their toilets, and to not feel bullied into saying yes or no, but I don't see why this a problem when a mixed use toilet could be made available to use by anyone of any sex. Or make the toilets male only or female only.
Mixed facilities are the easiest answer, not not all are happy with that. I think it’s probably how things will end though. "The whole subject is not inclusive to how 1 type or group feels and that is what is causing a lot of resistance. Many will feel it is one sided because their norm is being changed by things that they don't accept due to living life with a set of rules that made sense and now doesn't. Taking no account of that and calling those people transphobic or bigots is closing them down without consideration. Which is pretty much the very thing that the trans community are pushing for, not to be shutdown, and to be understood for what they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
