Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Grebfromgrebland

Also In The News

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

Because the truth still matters to a lot of people.

 

And many are harming others, just look at the division this is causing amongst women - many who feel they are having their rights and womanhood stolen from them by biological men.

...and the truth as it is seen there is the correct one? The undisputed, unimpeachable truth like a light in the sky?

 

I'm sorry, but this is, once again, a much more complex issue than a simple dichotomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...and the truth as it is seen there is the correct one? The undisputed, unimpeachable truth like a light in the sky?

 

I'm sorry, but this is, once again, a much more complex issue than a simple dichotomy.

Biology when it comes to sex is as settled in science as anything. A lot of the trans mob are no better than flat earthers or the ultra religious zealots. Not the opponents of them.

 

What I can't understand is why so much of the media is pushing this, outside of a few fringe groups no one seriously believes this stuff.

 

Even many in the pro trans argument often just resort to the "just let then be what they want" - even they can't bring themselves to seriously argue someone born XY is a girl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Biology when it comes to sex is as settled in science as anything. A lot of the trans mob are no better than flat earthers or the ultra religious zealots. Not the opponents of them.

 

What I can't understand is why so much of the media is pushing this, outside of a few fringe groups no one seriously believes this stuff.

 

Even many in the pro trans argument often just resort to the "just let then be what they want" - even they can't bring themselves to seriously argue someone born XY is a girl.

Bloody hell, Matt, it really isn't, there have been articles posted on here to that effect by myself and others before, and I'm still confounded by the attitudes of those who would appeal to "science" on this one and then disregard what they have to say on a really settled matter like climate change (not saying that is you personally, but I am saying there is a considerable overlap between gender essentialists and climate change ignorers - not going to call them deniers as you may as well deny the existence of gravity).

 

But I guess this is going to keep popping up because the lines in the sand are pretty well-drawn on the matter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Evidently not, if that last comment was anything to go by. Well, let them live but view them with contempt, which is what I was getting at.

 

...and this is a method everyone is able to use on sight in order to determine the sex of another human being and thus it is the ultimate arbiter of what sex is and means, overriding every other factor?

 

In any case, open any biology journal beyond, say, GCSE level and it is obvious that chromosomal data is more complex than a simple binary anyway.

The main issue is the pronoun, not the identity. I can't make out much contempt for transgender in that previous statement. If at all, it's all about personal responsability.

You can't force people to call you what you want them to, either they oblige you or they don't. We now have so many pronouns and a minority of "gender-fluids" where you can never be sure what is correct and what not. I see it as a result of our modern, saturated affluent society, where we have the luxury of treating minority issues as if they're the centre of the world stage.

It just adds unnecessary confusion.

Then again, transgender or "gender fluids" are a tiny minority, and the chances of meeting someone or dealing with a transgender on a regular basis are slim, anyway.

 

We're granting special rules and exceptions to all sorts of minorities, and place them in some sort of cocoon, emphasize rights over responsibilities, especially in the gender debate. No matter how you identify, you still ought to live a decent, regular life and don't impose your views or your sexuality onto others. Either you are special and we are all special or we all suffer the same.

After all, we all struggle through life, some more than others.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Lionator said:

I don't get why people care. If somebody feels that they're trans then let them be, they're not harming anyone. 

I'd concur, if it weren't for

It's another case of a liberal society allowing minorities same rights without debating the consequences or the responsibilities beforehand.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Bloody hell, Matt, it really isn't, there have been articles posted on here to that effect by myself and others before, and I'm still confounded by the attitudes of those who would appeal to "science" on this one and then disregard what they have to say on a really settled matter like climate change (not saying that is you personally, but I am saying there is a considerable overlap between gender essentialists and climate change ignorers - not going to call them deniers as you may as well deny the existence of gravity).

 

But I guess this is going to keep popping up because the lines in the sand are pretty well-drawn on the matter.

Biology generally recognises two sexes - barring chromosomal abnormalities. 

 

Scientists gave not agreed there are over two genders, nor have they disproved it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as the trans debate veers off into talking about chromosones you know its gone off the rails and is pretty worthless. 

 

Defining sex as chromosomal-sex is nonsense, it's only placental mammals and a few other reptiles and fish that use the XX/XY system to 'become' male or female. 

 

That we've recategorised sex away from the development of reproductive cells just because other definitions produce rainbows and progressives find comfort in pretty rainbows isn't actually useful to the cause they support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The main issue is the pronoun, not the identity. I can't make out much contempt for transgender in that previous statement. If at all, it's all about personal responsability.

You can't force people to call you what you want them to, either they oblige you or they don't. We now have so many pronouns and a minority of "gender-fluids" where you can never be sure what is correct and what not. I see it as a result of our modern, saturated affluent society, where we have the luxury of treating minority issues as if they're the centre of the world stage.

It just adds unnecessary confusion.

Then again, transgender or "gender fluids" are a tiny minority, and the chances of meeting someone or dealing with a transgender on a regular basis are slim, anyway.

 

We're granting special rules and exceptions to all sorts of minorities, and place them in some sort of cocoon, emphasize rights over responsibilities, especially in the gender debate. No matter how you identify, you still ought to live a decent, regular life and don't impose your views or your sexuality onto others. Either you are special and we are all special or we all suffer the same.

After all, we all struggle through life, some more than others.

If humanity hadn't divided itself based on demographics for pretty much the entirety of recorded history then I'd agree with you on that, but sadly that history means we can't really start with a blank slate treating everyone as their own person.

 

I mean, I get what you're saying, I just don't think it's practical or an accurate summation of how humans can and do behave most of the time. I do wish it was, though.

 

9 minutes ago, iniesta said:

Biology generally recognises two sexes - barring chromosomal abnormalities. 

 

Scientists gave not agreed there are over two genders, nor have they disproved it. 

Yeah, no disagreement on the bolded there, which is why I don't get the insistence from some parties that it's strictly one way or the other. As Kopf alludes to, it's a complex picture.

 

6 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

As soon as the trans debate veers off into talking about chromosones you know its gone off the rails and is pretty worthless. 

 

Defining sex as chromosomal-sex is nonsense, it's only placental mammals and a few other reptiles and fish that use the XX/XY system to 'become' male or female. 

 

That we've recategorised sex away from the development of reproductive cells just because other definitions produce rainbows and progressives find comfort in pretty rainbows isn't actually useful to the cause they support. 

I'm sorry Kopf, with you on the first couple of sentences but would you mind unpacking this last bit a little more if you have the time and inclination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I'd concur, if it weren't for

It's another case of a liberal society allowing minorities same rights without debating the consequences or the responsibilities beforehand.

Would you accept post-operative individuals in female areas in the first two cases? 

 

Whether or not you would, where do you think they should go instead? Male prisons and male restrooms, while externally trying to present as female (whether convincing or not) is a recipe for violence against them. Or does that not matter? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, brucey said:

Would you accept post-operative individuals in female areas in the first two cases? 

 

Whether or not you would, where do you think they should go instead? Male prisons and male restrooms, while externally trying to present as female (whether convincing or not) is a recipe for violence against them. Or does that not matter? 

Tough to answer. Even after an operation, males who have transitioned to female still possess many biological advantages, mostly strength and speed. And rape is still possible, just in other ways...

 

And there remains the potential of indecent behaviour of trans people towards women, although I'd have less issues with trans people on women's toilets.

 

Society here changes too quickly for authorities to react accordingly or in timely fashion. Trans criminals should probably be held in their own prison, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Tough to answer. Even after an operation, males who have transitioned to female still possess many biological advantages, mostly strength and speed. And rape is still possible, just in other ways...

 

And there remains the potential of indecent behaviour of trans people towards women, although I'd have less issues with trans people on women's toilets.

 

Society here changes too quickly for authorities to react accordingly or in timely fashion. Trans criminals should probably be held in their own prison, I suppose.

You are aware biologically female prisoners are fully capable of rape too? Are you going to separate out the butch lesbian bodybuilders from the female prison population, whether or not they have any inclination to rape people? 

 

It'd be great if we had gender neutral facilities (toilets and prisons) specifically for trans people, but then you get people complaining about that too (as has happened with toilets). Everyone is just going 'not my problem, just put them in solitary confinement / just hold your bladders' 

 

You seem to feel that transwomen are much more highly likely to rape / behave indecently than the regular population. Maybe because the one or two who have are sensationalised and plastered all over the news. Now I don't know how many trans people you have met, but I know a fair few. You probably imagine the ones depicted in the media who look like big blokes in drag. But in reality a lot of them early in transition just seem like very camp gay men, who then essentially develop into pretty women who are a bit tall. One I know is a tiny little old lady in her 70s who you really couldn't tell even if you knew. 

 

Even hormonal treatment alone takes away a lot of the aggression and strength, makes getting an erection very difficult, and anyway a lot of them are attracted to men so would have zero interest in attacking women. But ignorance breeds fear. 

 

Edited by brucey
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day i just say worry about your own house and relationships. You cant change or force anyone to change what they view themselves as or identify as.  If you want to be Harry instead of Sally go for it.  Whether i agree with that or not stays in my own mind.

 

To me, its about treating a human with respect and dignity regardless of sex, race etc. Even if they are giant tossers, be kind back and smile :)

 

Now, i will take my positive vibes to work and hope for a fantastic day. Lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, brucey said:

You are aware biologically female prisoners are fully capable of rape too? Are you going to separate out the butch lesbian bodybuilders from the female prison population, whether or not they have any inclination to rape people? 

 

It'd be great if we had gender neutral facilities (toilets and prisons) specifically for trans people, but then you get people complaining about that too (as has happened with toilets). Everyone is just going 'not my problem, just put them in solitary confinement / just hold your bladders' 

 

You seem to feel that transwomen are much more highly likely to rape / behave indecently than the regular population. Maybe because the one or two who have are sensationalised and plastered all over the news. Now I don't know how many trans people you have met, but I know a fair few. You probably imagine the ones depicted in the media who look like big blokes in drag. But in reality a lot of them early in transition just seem like very camp gay men, who then essentially develop into pretty women who are a bit tall. One I know is a tiny little old lady in her 70s who you really couldn't tell even if you knew. 

 

Even hormonal treatment alone takes away a lot of the aggression and strength, makes getting an erection very difficult, and anyway a lot of them are attracted to men so would have zero interest in attacking women. But ignorance breeds fear. 

 

Yes, but that wasn't your question, was it?

We've been talking about one thing and now you're changing scenery. You seem to conflate what I see as people "identifying" as the other gender (mostly males "identifying" as females) with people transitioning from male to female or from female to male. They are not the same.

 

As for the trans population, I'm not talking about them in general. For a person to be convicted, they need to have done bodily harm, thus it's only logical that the ones with the corresponding force/strength are more likely to be affected.

The fact that you know a few trans people is cute and good on you, but purely anecdotal. I suppose they are part of the population that just want to go on with their regular life and be a productive part of society. I can only assume they don't have a particular violent or nasty streak about them, so we're good there. Fine by me.

Doesn't change the fact that we're seeing an increase in men "identifying" as female (not trans people per se), and thus gaining an unfair advantage over the population in the women's prisons affected.

 

It's not about ignorance, it's about a minority issue and finding solutions given a specific trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Yes, but that wasn't your question, was it?

We've been talking about one thing and now you're changing scenery. You seem to conflate what I see as people "identifying" as the other gender (mostly males "identifying" as females) with people transitioning from male to female or from female to male. They are not the same.

I wasn't aware you could just declare one day that you're female and get sent to a female prison. There's a whole process that takes years, the criteria of which includes transitioning. So where is the conflation? 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes

 

As for toilets, you could try and go in a female toilet but you'd get screamed at and kicked out even if you said you were female. Even bringing a copy of the above document as proof doesn't generally help because you'd still get removed for making women uncomfortable. Btw female toilets are made up of all locking stalls and there's not much to see outside the stalls, just people putting on makeup at the sink which is hardly interesting to a 'peeping Tom'. You could slide a camera under a stall partition but you wouldn't get away with it (far too obvious). You could sneakily install hidden cameras but a man could also go in and do that when the toilets are empty. And a man could also walk into a female toilet with a lone woman and attack her. So I don't see a genuine threat, just a perceived one. 

 

Edited by brucey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry Kopf, with you on the first couple of sentences but would you mind unpacking this last bit a little more if you have the time and inclination?

Well sex has for so long been to do with gametes that an individual can produce. The female produces the large gamete and the male the small. That is how we categorise sex across the animal kingdom and is binary. Its not completely accurate because there are a variety of reasons why producing gametes might be prohibited so, whilst also not completely accurate, you look at developed capability. Sex is not binary because in rare cases people can be both and presumably neither

 

But in humans we've now decided to view sex in whatever ways suit us;chromosomal, genitalia, hormonal etc and progressives (which I of course use out of laziness) love that cos it can be packaged as a rainbow which is nice, comforting social cakeism. This can then be easily rammed down people's throats appended by 'look science' and anyone that dares to gag whilst it goes down can be identified as a bad person. 

 

But its not actually any better or more useful than saying sex is binary. Intuitively it sounds like utter nonsense to people and so using existing frameworks but moving the goalposts to show those frameworks to be archaic is plain daft, it really just gives a helping hand to the genuinely transphobic. Liberty and autonomy requires cold, hard honesty whilst these battles only deliver openness with time not with comfort blankets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Well sex has for so long been to do with gametes that an individual can produce. The female produces the large gamete and the male the small. That is how we categorise sex across the animal kingdom and is binary. Its not completely accurate because there are a variety of reasons why producing gametes might be prohibited so, whilst also not completely accurate, you look at developed capability. Sex is not binary because in rare cases people can be both and presumably neither

 

But in humans we've now decided to view sex in whatever ways suit us;chromosomal, genitalia, hormonal etc and progressives (which I of course use out of laziness) love that cos it can be packaged as a rainbow which is nice, comforting social cakeism. This can then be easily rammed down people's throats appended by 'look science' and anyone that dares to gag whilst it goes down can be identified as a bad person. 

 

But its not actually any better or more useful than saying sex is binary. Intuitively it sounds like utter nonsense to people and so using existing frameworks but moving the goalposts to show those frameworks to be archaic is plain daft, it really just gives a helping hand to the genuinely transphobic. Liberty and autonomy requires cold, hard honesty whilst these battles only deliver openness with time not with comfort blankets. 

Ah right, thank you.

 

So even though the matter is (probably) of some complexity explaining that doesn't actually do much good in terms of progress because peoples intuition is what really matters from a societal point of view and the only way such intuition changes is through time because, of course, Rome wasn't built in a day? There's something in that, I suppose.

 

I think we've had discussions before about how societal change and progress can't usually be drastic without some pretty awful consequences - it's mostly true, but I've got to say it's a mite frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, brucey said:

I wasn't aware you could just declare one day that you're female and get sent to a female prison. There's a whole process that takes years, the criteria of which includes transitioning. So where is the conflation? 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes

 

As for toilets, you could try and go in a female toilet but you'd get screamed at and kicked out even if you said you were female. Even bringing a copy of the above document as proof doesn't generally help because you'd still get removed for making women uncomfortable. Btw female toilets are made up of all locking stalls and there's not much to see outside the stalls, just people putting on makeup at the sink which is hardly interesting to a 'peeping Tom'. You could slide a camera under a stall partition but you wouldn't get away with it (far too obvious). You could sneakily install hidden cameras but a man could also go in and do that when the toilets are empty. And a man could also walk into a female toilet with a lone woman and attack her. So I don't see a genuine threat, just a perceived one. 

 

I can think of examples in the US of A:

https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/californias-transgender-prison-policy-is-a-disaster-for-women/

 

There are others.

https://quillette.com/2019/10/12/male-bodied-rapists-are-being-imprisoned-with-women-why-do-so-few-people-care/

 

Daily Fail on the situation in the UK:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7230755/One-50-male-prisoners-identify-female.html

 

As for toilets - like I said, a gender-neutral, third solution could do the trick. Or one for trans people only. It's just my assumption that both a majority of men and women would be against sharing their toilets with trans people.

 

The issue is minimal, though. Most company toilets I know are single-person use. Shared restrooms are another topic altogether.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/03/2020 at 03:22, leicsmac said:

Spot on.

 

As an addenum, when discussion of trans folks enters the mainstream, at least 90% of the time it focuses on trans women ("protect womens bathrooms" and all that) and trans men aren't really mentioned at all, despite being a significant proportion of the trans population as you attest here.

That does seem to be the case a lot of the time. There's certainly a case for defending women's well earned rights and protected spaces from a minority of people with sinister intentions but I don't think the situation is as widespread as is made out by the likes of Graham Linehan. Nor is he or JK Rowling as evil as is made out by certain trans activists (who IMO, do their own cause and regular trans people a lot of harm on social media with aggressive behaviour towards anyone with an alternative point of view). The answer is somewhere in the middle ground, a million miles from twitter where the complexities can be explored in more than 240 characters at a time. The problem with that at the minute is that social media rows keep spilling out into the real world and just the other day, a feminist author was dropped from a feminist conference because of intimidation from activists. At Oxford University.

 

On 01/03/2020 at 08:38, MC Prussian said:

The main issue with this "trend" of transgenderism, which still is a tiny minority on the whole, is that it targets young people who aren't quite sure about their sexuality yet in times of personal turmoil (puberty and whatnot), that takes years, in some cases even decades to develop and manifest itself in a healthy, conscious and confident manner.

 

How old were the kids you were dealing with at school? If it's below 16, then questions need to be raised about the influence of media and people pushing a transgender agenda, a minority topic, on youth culture.

 

One of the more well-known cases comes from Canada, where a mother claimed her son was a girl, encouraged him to behave like one, the father having something against that:

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-appeal-court-rules-transgender-teen-can-decide-on-hormone-treatments

 

The boy has now decided to be a boy, if I'm not mistaken.

 

One was 15 going on 16, the other I'd known since they were 14 and her transition happened during their first semester of Uni. I knew the latter much better because she was a bit of a loner at DofE, so for her Gold award we allowed her to volunteer as a leader award with us and I spent quite a lot of time with them teaching how to supervise expeditions etc. That's why the transition felt quite flippant for me - though I wish them all the best of course; it just felt a bit insincere and one of those things people can get carried away with at that age. 

 

On 01/03/2020 at 10:17, Toddybad said:

No so much about trans specifically, more in response to the middle bit about youth culture...

 

I read an interesting piece a couple of years ago talking about why there is so much militant 'wokism' amongst the young.

 

(What the piece didn't cover which I'll add is that it's still a minority, just a load one. Usually the three top members of a uni LBGT group attempting to shut down debate which the Daily Mail uses as an excuse to generalise about all young people.)

 

It suggested that in the past the young turned to music (rock and roll), then drugs in the 70s, then different drugs in the 80s, then ladism and alcohol and different drugs in the 90s to rebel against the older order.... Basically the older generations have done all that stuff so being woke is now what the next generation have left to rebel against former generations that did more drugs, drank more and liberalised sex in mainstream culture.

 

Interesting theory.

 

I still find it annoying. But then I guess that's the point if the article is right.

I suspect there's a lot of truth to that to be honest. There's been so much social progress in the last 60 years or so but things feel like they've stalled since the financial crisis. So while people are perhaps financially worse off than their parents (I know I bloody am), people project that onto social issues close to them and genuinely believe that they're living at the worst possible time for those issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

 

I preferred her to Swinson, when she considered standing last time - and Ed Davey comes across a bit well-meaning but dull, I'm afraid.

 

I'm not sure that a "kinder, gentler politics" will ever work for anyone, but I like the sound of the rest of this....

 

"We have spoken a lot about what Liberal Democrats at a national level are against, but that's just not good enough and people want to have a positive vision for the country," she said. The 37-year-old said she wanted to make sure a no-deal Brexit was avoided, and she would prioritise opportunity, education and climate change. She said she wanted to promote "pragmatic" cross-party work, and "kinder gentler politics".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

I preferred her to Swinson, when she considered standing last time - and Ed Davey comes across a bit well-meaning but dull, I'm afraid.

 

I'm not sure that a "kinder, gentler politics" will ever work for anyone, but I like the sound of the rest of this....

 

"We have spoken a lot about what Liberal Democrats at a national level are against, but that's just not good enough and people want to have a positive vision for the country," she said. The 37-year-old said she wanted to make sure a no-deal Brexit was avoided, and she would prioritise opportunity, education and climate change. She said she wanted to promote "pragmatic" cross-party work, and "kinder gentler politics".

I don't think it matters really. If the Lib Dems can't seriously make inroads when they had 48% of the population there for the taking they just aren't ever going to be relevant.

 

I thought Moran was pretty good when she arrived on the scene but I've not been impressed with her since. Kinder, gentler politics from someone who was nicked for slapping her boyfriend? Good luck.

 

Starmer, whilst boring, should at least make Labour moderately sensible again and that should sweep up a few Lib Dem votes, in addition to that aside from the FBPE types the Tories should drag some back post Brexit.

 

I almost feel guilty for taking the piss out of the Labour leadership race - this lot haven't even started yet? No wonder they want the EU to make all the decisions for them - maybe they should just ask the commission to pick a leader rather than have a race?:sweating:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't think it matters really. If the Lib Dems can't seriously make inroads when they had 48% of the population there for the taking they just aren't ever going to be relevant.

 

I thought Moran was pretty good when she arrived on the scene but I've not been impressed with her since. Kinder, gentler politics from someone who was nicked for slapping her boyfriend? Good luck.

 

Starmer, whilst boring, should at least make Labour moderately sensible again and that should sweep up a few Lib Dem votes, in addition to that aside from the FBPE types the Tories should drag some back post Brexit.

 

I almost feel guilty for taking the piss out of the Labour leadership race - this lot haven't even started yet? No wonder they want the EU to make all the decisions for them - maybe they should just ask the commission to pick a leader rather than have a race?:sweating:

In fairness they've only got 11 MPs to choose from. Well, 10 if we discount the former Liberal Democrat leader who couldn't cope with answering if gay sex was a sin or not and wanted to overturn the biggest democratic vote in British history. Now their best option seems to be a domestic abuser sexually attracted to pans who looks like a ****ing Wallace and Gromit character.

 

440px-Official_portrait_of_Layla_Moran_Mwg1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...