it isn't transphobic to take the view that believing yourself to be the opposite sex don't make it so
I am quite weirded out by Twitter's latest - banning "deadnaming"
So presumably you can now be banned for talking about Ian Huntley etc
it's absolutely crazy that we are pretending this is a thing and then using it as a tool to dismantle all of the basic protections in place for dignity and privacy
it looks as though Scotland will have gender recognition legislation introduced next year - what protections will there be for people who don't want to provide intimate services to individuals who are biologically the opposite sex? I suspect zero protections.
I am not sure how security checks for schools and hospitals etc are supposed to work when the pre-trans identity of the person in question is never supposed to ever be mentioned again
For me the crux is as soon as you do have self-identify legislation there is no real way to have protections. Nicola Huntley will get transferred to a womens' prison and women who wax other womens' clunges will have to wax scrotums or shut up shop.
When I say can't have protections, what I mean is there isn't a sub-clause you can introduce saying "OK you can now be a woman overnight but not if you're a murderer the public hate or want your bollocks waxing"
Yes Judy. As soon as they are a woman they are a woman. And if you don't want the equivalent of a Ford Cortina shoved up your foofah by someone who still has dangleberries you are an AWFUL TRANSPHOBE
I am not transphobic, I am notbeingabletohavesensibleconversationsaboutthingsthatsometimes(butnotnecessarilyalways)aretiedupwithsocietalandpsychologicalissues-phobia
I am trying to illustrate a point which by no means is a rule.
If we get het up with worrying about offending people, or more accurately worrying about being labelled as an offensive person by the masses, then we are going to end up failing to give people help when they need it.
I would go so far as to say people are going to die as a result of not being able to have conversations that need to be had.
I'm fairly sure you can refuse to have it from anyone. For example little old ladies who are massive racists can say they don't want a brown doctor, even thought that's clearly direct discrimination. The thing is you probably wouldn't know until they walked in.
This business of some people seemingly taking the piss and "pretending" to be transgender whilst society generally is coming to terms with the idea and being, generally, understanding and accepting will surely soon have to be dealt with.
Someone like Ian Huntley is clearly totally fvked up and cannot be taken seriously as transgender.
Exactly, that's the whole point of accepting self declaration. A lot of personality disordered males with no sexual boundaries (see the ex student Union official who allegedly called for the expulsion of lesbian students who refuse to consider sex "involving a penis" without having tried it) might genuinely think they are women and have no idea that they are nothing like most / any female born person.
It's not just Huntley. There are others. Not being able to identify who they were is positively dangerous. Twitter's thought-policing is highly likely to harm women.
If you or any other chap wants to wear mascara and a frock, fair play to you. Women have been cutting their hair short and wearing trousers if they fancy it for most of the past century. They did not become men and men do not become women because they have "ladyfeelz", whatever they might be.
"little old ladies who are massive racists can say they don't want a brown doctor, even thought that's clearly direct discrimination."
It's clearly discrimination but the L.O.L.s are the recipients of the service not the provider so the question is not is it discriminatory but is it lawful.
the twitter loons always remind me of those bits in a film where a psychopath is trying to learn to mimic normal people by copying their smile but they just don;t get the emotional connection that would spontaneously generate it
like, this man has seen pictures of women on instagram and is trying to emulate "womanly" poses but has no internal genesis of (what he would call, anyway) femininity
Shall we just spend a bit of time working out what needs to be done, not on an ideological level, but on a practical level. It almost certainly involves some tweeting
I am not sure how security checks for schools and hospitals etc are supposed to work when the pre-trans identity of the person in question is never supposed to ever be mentioned again
I think they check via the CRB rather than Twitter, Clergs.
The bit of the discussion that so often seems missing is what the long-term effects are for the person undergoing treatment. These are very new drug, physical and psychological treatments and so, by the nature of it, we don't have much info.
I have serious concerns that altering someone's hormones or adding or removing parts to re-create the opposite sex, however well-intentioned and ingenious from a medical point of view, may have long-term damaging physical and psychological effects.
From a moral standpoint I have no objection to people changing sex.
0
1
You sound pretty ‘armless.
0
1
When I was born the midwife thought I had three legs.
0
1
I would say that this is a fairly extreme way of expressing transphobic views.
0
1
what Jack said.
0
1
it isn't transphobic to take the view that believing yourself to be the opposite sex don't make it so
I am quite weirded out by Twitter's latest - banning "deadnaming"
So presumably you can now be banned for talking about Ian Huntley etc
it's absolutely crazy that we are pretending this is a thing and then using it as a tool to dismantle all of the basic protections in place for dignity and privacy
it looks as though Scotland will have gender recognition legislation introduced next year - what protections will there be for people who don't want to provide intimate services to individuals who are biologically the opposite sex? I suspect zero protections.
0
1
Wtf is "deadnaming"?
0
1
what Clerghers said.
0
1
it is referring to a trans person by their previous name
a ban on deadnaming is brilliant news for sex offenders
0
1
I am not sure how security checks for schools and hospitals etc are supposed to work when the pre-trans identity of the person in question is never supposed to ever be mentioned again
0
1
YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CALL NICOLA HUNTLEY IAN NOW YOU MASSIVE TRANSPHOBE
0
1
I know! it's all complete lunacy
0
1
ps guess what Holly Wells's mother is called
0
1
For me the crux is as soon as you do have self-identify legislation there is no real way to have protections. Nicola Huntley will get transferred to a womens' prison and women who wax other womens' clunges will have to wax scrotums or shut up shop.
0
1
Oooh ooooh I know this one - is it Nicola?
0
1
When I say can't have protections, what I mean is there isn't a sub-clause you can introduce saying "OK you can now be a woman overnight but not if you're a murderer the public hate or want your bollocks waxing"
0
1
it is indeed Nicola
the harassing mental fook
I am not really into burning the paedos but I do think we should burn him for reasons of sanitation
0
1
would this legislation allow me, for example, to have a smear test by a trans-woman?
0
1
Yes Judy. As soon as they are a woman they are a woman. And if you don't want the equivalent of a Ford Cortina shoved up your foofah by someone who still has dangleberries you are an AWFUL TRANSPHOBE
0
1
I forgot a *to refuse in my post supra.
0
1
Jack - your comment is exactly what worries me.
I am not transphobic, I am notbeingabletohavesensibleconversationsaboutthingsthatsometimes(butnotnecessarilyalways)aretiedupwithsocietalandpsychologicalissues-phobia
I am trying to illustrate a point which by no means is a rule.
If we get het up with worrying about offending people, or more accurately worrying about being labelled as an offensive person by the masses, then we are going to end up failing to give people help when they need it.
I would go so far as to say people are going to die as a result of not being able to have conversations that need to be had.
0
1
I think genuinely our species works on some kind of planetary, century-long menstrual cycle and we are heading into another phase of complete wtf.
0
1
I'm fairly sure you can refuse to have it from anyone. For example little old ladies who are massive racists can say they don't want a brown doctor, even thought that's clearly direct discrimination. The thing is you probably wouldn't know until they walked in.
0
1
This business of some people seemingly taking the piss and "pretending" to be transgender whilst society generally is coming to terms with the idea and being, generally, understanding and accepting will surely soon have to be dealt with.
Someone like Ian Huntley is clearly totally fvked up and cannot be taken seriously as transgender.
0
1
Someone like Ian Huntley is clearly totally fvked up and cannot be taken seriously as transgender.
Why?
Who are you to judge his own sincerely-held belief that he is a woman?
And there will be no-one to judge when it's self-ID.
0
1
Exactly, that's the whole point of accepting self declaration. A lot of personality disordered males with no sexual boundaries (see the ex student Union official who allegedly called for the expulsion of lesbian students who refuse to consider sex "involving a penis" without having tried it) might genuinely think they are women and have no idea that they are nothing like most / any female born person.
0
1
OOOOOOooooh Clergs you've made a classic blunder there, confusing sex and gender.
0
1
No, I definitely haven't.
Unless you think woman as a class is not defined by the norms manifested among females?
Maybe men get to define what a woman is?
0
1
It's not just Huntley. There are others. Not being able to identify who they were is positively dangerous. Twitter's thought-policing is highly likely to harm women.
0
1
No, I think sex is biological and gender is social.
0
1
Faod in my opinion transwomen are gender non conforming men and only females can be women
0
1
Why do you think I'm a man? Or male?
0
1
Chromosomes and genitalia.
If you or any other chap wants to wear mascara and a frock, fair play to you. Women have been cutting their hair short and wearing trousers if they fancy it for most of the past century. They did not become men and men do not become women because they have "ladyfeelz", whatever they might be.
0
1
**gathers Twitter mob**
**Burns Nexis and Clergs**
0
1
"little old ladies who are massive racists can say they don't want a brown doctor, even thought that's clearly direct discrimination."
It's clearly discrimination but the L.O.L.s are the recipients of the service not the provider so the question is not is it discriminatory but is it lawful.
0
1
*is too damp to burn *
the twitter loons always remind me of those bits in a film where a psychopath is trying to learn to mimic normal people by copying their smile but they just don;t get the emotional connection that would spontaneously generate it
like, this man has seen pictures of women on instagram and is trying to emulate "womanly" poses but has no internal genesis of (what he would call, anyway) femininity
0
1
Shall we solve it?
0
1
Maybe that is that actual "purpose" of ROF
0
1
Maybe that is that actual "purpose" of ROF
0
1
Shall we just spend a bit of time working out what needs to be done, not on an ideological level, but on a practical level. It almost certainly involves some tweeting
0
1
I'd think you might be Zaphod Beeblebrox.
0
1
heh
0
1
I think they check via the CRB rather than Twitter, Clergs.
0
1
yes and if this were a problem only on twitter then it wouldn't matter would it
0
1
The bit of the discussion that so often seems missing is what the long-term effects are for the person undergoing treatment. These are very new drug, physical and psychological treatments and so, by the nature of it, we don't have much info.
I have serious concerns that altering someone's hormones or adding or removing parts to re-create the opposite sex, however well-intentioned and ingenious from a medical point of view, may have long-term damaging physical and psychological effects.
From a moral standpoint I have no objection to people changing sex.
0
1
I similarly have no moral issue with the sun orbiting the earth.
0
1
Ps the point of modern rhetoric is that 80% of people never have surgery or medication
They're just dudes and chicks chalking their neuroses up to "must be the other one".
0
1
Or a third one
0
1
That's part of my point; how do you assess who is actually suitable for treatment?
0
1
Most don't want treatment
They just have really primitive ideas about the meaning of gender
0
1
Oh. I have no such data to hand.
Join the discussion