You remember the thread. One or two posters here were pleased as punch about the "non-binary" status of this individual as allegedly it demonstrated something. Well, apparently that was all a load of bollocks. Wot a surprise.
https://twitter.com/theserfstv/status/1600564358123491328?s=20&t=abOXo_chewQdXcsXR8Z5Ng
9
0
Ok this is the thing that bugs me and I need you to answer.
The objection to self ID is not that "trans people are bad".
It's that "women are generally considered to be vulnerable to psycho men and psycho men will self ID as trans to hurt them or to try to get away with a lesser sentence when caught or just to further upset people".
Why can't you understand this?
(It's far from only you, it seems most people under 40 cannot compute the difference)
3
1
If your answer is "because psycho men hurt men all the time and I dont see why women deserve special consideration" then fair enough I guess it's arguably consistent.
0
0
I've never once argued in favour of "self ID".
4
1
That's what this whole argument is about...
6
1
The idea that individuals should be treated as women if they say they are women is self ID and is the CRUX of the issue that is shredding the left throughout the anglosphere.
1
1
Which argument?
0
0
I'm sorry Chimp but I absolutely do not remember certain Roffers celebrating this terrorists identity and saying the 'main stream media' wasn't reporting it due to reasons
1
1
A) it's not "shredding the left" lol. Most people don't care that much about it
B) I thought "self ID" is a specific policy proposal that your self-description of your gender should be treated as absolutely final and as entitling you to absolutely everything of that gender. I don't support that. In fact I in general don't really support the notion that "trans women are women". I just end up in lengthy arguments with some people on here because some of the anti-trans stuff is just out of control and nasty
2
0
I think it's possible to say "there ought to be sensible safeguards for everyone" without getting Proud Boys-adjacent
4
0
There can't be safeguards for everyone. You either support self ID or you support women being protected from sociopaths. And a lot (a lot) of people care enough not to vote labour or lib dem over it.
5
0
‘I think it's possible to say "there ought to be sensible safeguards for everyone" without getting Proud Boys-adjacent‘
well quite. It’s almost as if it isn’t really about just having sensible safeguards 🤔
0
0
Well, I just told you I don't support self-ID so ?????
On your latter point, polling suggests otherwise, or at least it did the last time we did that argument here. Only a minority of people care (fewer than 10%). Of those that care, more care in the pro-trans direction than in the anti-trans direction.
3
1
So if you don't support self ID why are you slagging off the people who oppose it?
0
1
Heh. What kind of an argument is that?
0
0
i don’t support self-id but i reserve my right 2 slag u off generally spanky
my desire 2 slag u off is in fact entirely independent from my beliefs about self-id
0
1
If I'm a vegetarian am I supposed to like Hitler?
0
1
The anti-trans right contains some fooking awful people. Yes, I might agree that the notion of being able to change gender and be treated forever as the other gender just because you say so has a few practical and philosophical issues. But they're not my mates and I fully reserve the right to slag them, or indeed anyone else, off to the fullest extent deserved by them
0
1
And then they brought out the analogies, but I did not speak up because I knew that was the beginning of the end, thank fvkc.
0
0
i particularly reserve the right 2 slag u off behind ur back btw spanky
that’s my important reservation of rights
and again it still has nothing 2 do with my views on self-id
i just sometimes desper7ly need 2 slag u off.
apropos nothing wot’s ur nonny chimp m7
0
1
Part of the reason that the last thread went for several pages is that it was put to me repeatedly that "what everyone says you have to do" is uncritically accept anyone's gender identity, no matter what they've done or are in the process of doing, without even considering for one moment that they may be claiming an identity cynically. I rejected that characterisation of "what everyone says you have to do" as a straw-man argument, which caused some heads to explode
5
1
‘If you don’t support one bunch of extremist nutters you have to support the other bunch of extremist nutters’ is literally why the debate is so toxic and damaging to the trans community and women HTH
0
0
well there’s a little slight of hand the alt-right try to pull with this - “self-id” can mean that in the stonewall sense, or it could mean “self-declaration” (or “self-determination”) in the legal sense, which doesn’t mean that at all but is just a less oppressive (and expensive) way for trans people to be recognised in law
the first is of course open to abuse, the second (ie the scottish law) just brings us more in line with the irish and maltese and new german positions, and is the direction the council of europe recommended years ago (as well as a recent cross party uk review that liz truss ignored)
2
0
don’t b ridiculous, nobody’s head exploded. that would literally kill them and they would no longer b able 2 post on trans threads
it’s that sort of ott exaggeration which leads rof discussions where they go these days
2
0
Fair enough chill, cheers.
5
1
(and fwiw i don’t agree with the stonewall “just if you say you’re a woman” position, despite occam and anna and all the other anti-trans posters trying to pretend i do)
2
0
There is no other way to be "non-binary".
Everyone is non-binary. Non-binary means not conforming 0% or 100% to the stereotypes given to your sex by the society you live in. That's everyone. Non-binary is by nature self-selecting, as is trans. It's all utter subjective bullshit. That shooter was as non-binary as anyone else.
2
0
Tell me how you could even possible "verify" whether someone is "non-binary" without it being entirely self-ID.
2
0
So what does someone have to do to become a woman when they are a man for you Chill, if not just say they are?
0
0
well as always occam that’s an entirely bad faith question that makes no sense
it depends on the context
in a prison, in a coffee shop, in a courtroom, in a swimming competition, on a tinder profile, in a hospital, applying for a pension, trying on a sweater in m&s, applying for a marriage certificate, going to the toilet in a museum
different criteria should apply to all of those to ensure safety and fairness
the point is trans people are currently institutionally discriminated against and that’s not right
0
0
speak 4 urself pinko
i’m 💯 percent man, me. i literally ooze masculinity
i’m basically gaston from beauty and the beast
0
0
bizarre how occam can spend hours and hours arguing about this stuff online and still not have the first fvcking clue what he’s talking about
impressive in a way
3
0
Set them out.
But even if you do, none of them stand up to scrutiny or objective assessment, because gender ideology is a mass of contradictory horsesh1t based on regressive stereotypes.
2
0
Why is my position wrong.
0
1
well for what reason would i need to “verify” that occam?
you mean if they were a cashier in a bank or something?
i wouldn’t give a tug
5
0
Classic TRA tactic.
"You don't know what you're talking about" without saying why.
Chill you've spent two years not being able to say what a woman is you mad khvnt. You're not an expert in anything apart from being owned on the internet by women who do know what a woman is.
0
1
heh no thanks you loon
2
1
For any legal rights or responsibilities to flow from that status, dickhead.
3
0
Standard.
You're a troll.
0
0
because that’s not what “non-binary” means
read a book
0
0
“a mass of contradictory horsesh1t based on regressive stereotypes.”
And that’s all the rof we’ve got time for today, kids. Don’t forget to tune in tomorrow for more of the same.
3
1
Why don't you tell me what non-binary means if my definition is wrong.
0
0
eh?
”legal rights” to participate in a swimming competition?
”legal rights” to try on a sweater in marks and spencers?
what are you talking about exactly? the equality act?
5
0
Which book?
Chill's Guide To Being A Massive TRA Khvnt?
1
0
Read a book
0
1
heh
fair tbh
0
0
pinko m7, clearly i - with regret and 4tun7ly uniquely - have 2 agree with u on the whole tedious topic, but u do realise ur str7 up sealioning on this thread? i mean, absolute textbook style
2
0
If you were all having this debate in real life at, say, a dinner party, and I was there, I’d be in the corner nodding sagely, understanding nothing and getting absolutely rinsed on a bottle of scotch.
3
1
I'd be in the kitchen.
Of an entirely different house.
2
1
Ooh, good one. You could invite me round. I’ve got whisky.
2
1
Hey can I join you? It’s 1990 and I have cigarettes.
2
1
Is it a peaty single malt?
Rothmans?
You're both in.
3
0
I don't know what this means and don't care. If there's anything I'm saying that's wrong point it out. I'm not even arsed enough to look up what sealioning means let alone work out what that means as an allegation against me. Non-binary is meaningless. Everyone is non-binary. If you disagree tell me why I'm wrong.
2
0
Sure. If it’s 1990 we don’t need to worry about any of the above either 🤙
2
0
Yes of course a peaty single malt, Jesus
3
0
WELL BECAUSE BEING NON BINARY MEANS WEARING DUNGAREES AND WIRE RIM GLASSES! AND HAVING SHORT HAIR. AND NON-BINARY PEOPLE ARE SO EDGY! OBVS!
2
0
1
1
look it up then u ignorant multi-tool. it means there is a huge irony in u accusing chill of being the troll
i’ve already told u i don’t disagree in principle. but given ur trolling and general moral/political position, i srsly doubt the sincerity of ur reasoning which generally seems 2 fall in the bigot-h7 end of the spectrum and there4 drag down the legitim7 concerns raised by women rather than extremists like u and elfffi
1
0
Look what up?
2
0
Why should I look anything up when the opposing view isn't even making a counterpoint out?
Nah ta!
2
0
OK! NOTED!
Also not any counter to anything I've said.
3
1
Chill you've been repeatedly told why you aren't being kind to women. You come across as a bit of - or should I say even more of - a khvnt posting stuff like this. You aren't kind. You're a khvnt. HTH.
1
0
3
0
It’s a packet of B&H, American Spirit tobacco, a bottle of tequila in my bag and some shot glasses. I am going to light a fire in the garden and put on some John Lee Hooker.
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=i0KmyDEqGIk
0
0
4
1
So the monomaniacs have been completely wrecked as per and sponge is calling everyone khunts which is always a good sign xhe has WON AND NOT LOST CONTROL OF XIMSELF. Good to see.
1
1
Always good to see RR on the periphary saying nothing of interest but being On The Right Side Of History.
Well done, RR. Have a gold star.
1
0
Chill and RR: what does non-binary mean?
1
0
mayb the thing u sed u didn’t understand? which seems 2 have been “sealioning”
u smeg-encrusted, bigoted, engorged toolbag
3
0
What Clergs and Tom Fun said.
Not what the tedious woke bros who have no answers to any of these questions but feel the need to constantly demonstrate that they have the right opinions said.
1
0
Have you read the thread, tuesday? No-one, with the possible exception of chill, has expressed any opinions that could be described as ‘woke bro’.
0
0
"woke bro" isn't even a thing
0
0
I’m with the centrist dads on this and all other matters.
1
0
These non binary gender people are like the hippies of our day. It’s harmless bullshit but they are trying in their own way to be different and make a new culture. It’s admirable when you view it that way. If some people want to live that way then let them. The problem is that they are authoritarian in a really unpleasant way: see brother Chill, for example. Anyone who isn’t in their commune is “phobic” in some way.
0
0
We live in an authoritarian age. The soi disant commonsense objectors are just as bad generally and in many cases worse. The combo of social media and ignorance has amplified this stuff to the exclusion of the important things really threatening our way of life. History will judge these morons all equally poorly.
1
0
They're trying to be "different" by redefining everyone else as boring normies.
Fvck that shit.
Grown ups manage to be individuals without needing a special badge to announce to the world how special they are.
1
0
It's pretty much a synonym for centrist dads at this point.
Men, with no skin in the game and no actual solutions to any of the problems caused (mostly for women and children) by people demanding that everyone acknowledge their special identities, nonetheless siding with the special snowflakes because their political tribe believes this is progressive.
1
0
And heh @ all of this.
WTF is the point of the word "woman" if it means something different in every possible context, to the point where nobody knows WTF anyone else means when they use the word?
Do you actually understand the purpose of language? That it is a tool for communication?
How about we just have a word that means adult humans of the female biological sex and people can come up with other words to discuss their special identities, since they are the only people who care or wish to discuss them?
Trans people are not "institutionally discriminated against". They are treated as a sacred class who can do no wrong and who are afforded far greater respect and consideration than the rest of us.
1
0
That was some do last night. Feel rough today tho - whose idea was it to crack open the Japanese stuff!?
Did you hear those f*ckers going on and on about the non-binaries…what were they on!!???
0
0
Hey morning! I can’t remember anything after about midnight. The tequila bottle is empty and I seem to have the table salt in my bag. I remember vaguely thé home made fire lanterns…
1
0
I studiously avoid these trans threads. However, the binary and non-binary seems as much a maths/linguistics/computer science question as anything else so I'm going to dip my toe in before I join the whisky drinkers.
Aren't those people who believe men who are born male are men and women who are born female are women (and, in each case, only them) by definition binary?
These people exist, so not everyone can be non-binary?
0
0
well the hippies did this too. One day a dawn will break and the non binaries will look around at the mess and empty vodka bottles and fag ends in beer glasses and say “well this was fun but I’m going to call myself Samantha again rather than Sam and I’m going to grow my hair long and get a job and a boyfriend that has a car and works in advertising”
And we will look back fondly on the crazy idealism of another youth cohort.
1
0
Oh God, the LANTERNS 😱
2
1
Omg I can't even today. The kitchen is a war zone, and some khunt has drawn a hitler mustache on all the family photos.
1
0
Suggestion for common ground: Shooting people who did nothing wrong is bad, no matter whether or not you are confused about your body.
2
1
Sex is binary.
Gender is made up. The proponents of this ideology themselves say that gender is a spectrum, and fluid. Non-binary people are people who don't conform fully to the stereotypes society assigns to their sex. Nobody conforms 0% or 100% to the stereotypes society assigns to their sex. Therefore, everyone in non-binary in terms of gender. And everyone is binary in terms of sex.
0
0
Gender vs Sex, got it.
0
0
@Chill - Are you thinking of having your bits chopped off? You'll still be a transwoman, not a woman. Simple.
You can't change your sex and you shouldn't go into women only safe spaces. Simples.
1
0
Depends whether you're talking about sex or gender.
If you're talking about sex, everyone is binary, regardless of how they identify.
If you're talking about gender, nobody is binary, so the "non binary people" aren't special.
0
0
well it’s a social category that is used to describe a set of people within society, it’s not unusual that it’s criteria can shift in different social settings
and from a feminist perspective, it’s used to describe the ways women are subjugated to men within the patriarchal society we live in
(if i was doing a critique of capitalism, it would be nonsense to say “wtf is the point of the term “middle class” if it means something different in every possible context”, wouldn’t it?)
well clearly you and other gc advocates are trying very hard to do this, but tbh i don’t really see what aim it serves to say women are discriminated against solely due to their capacity to reproduce and deny there’s any social component to it at all, when there clearly is
it seems to me that does a disservice equally to those who are oppressed because of their gender as well as those who suffer from reproductive exploitation
1
0
Which people is it describing?
What common features do all people in this category share?
You mean like when women are told they can't define themselves as female people and have their own single sex spaces and sports because it upsets the penis women?
I don't care whether you agree that we need words for adult humans of the female biological sex.
I and many other women believe that we need a word for that, therefore we need a word for it.
I don't agree that we need a word for "adult humans of the female biological sex except those who believe they identify as something other than women, plus adult humans of the male biological sex who believe they identify as women" because this is not an actual group of people with anything in common.
Trans people aren't "oppressed because of their gender", they experience some discrimination on the basis of how they choose to present themselves.
Can we not agree that people should be free to wear whatever they like and present however they like as long as they aren't harming anyone, without accepting that women should be redefined without their consent and forced to accept the opposite sex in their single sex spaces and sports for no reason other than because that's what certain members of the opposite sex want?
3
1
Woman is NOT a social category. It means adult human female.
If you khunts want to create social categories. I suggest you do so. It would really be of benefit for everyone.
It's quite remarkable when you think about it. Most academics cannot be stopped from creating new terms. Yet FC's weird American religious leaders have failed to do so.
Any suggestions?
0
0
Case closed.
0
1
Call it. Time of death.
1
1
heh
but… it is? (cf not me but any feminist in the last fifty years?)
go crazy on them occam - tell all the feminists they’ve been wrong for longer than you’ve been alive
i don’t give a tug as long as you don’t be openly misogynist or transphobic on this board
this will be a challenge for you i know
0
0
um we don’t create them, society does
we just identify them
awkward for you occam m7
4
0
There is no social category which includes me, Karen White and Eddie Izzard, Chill.
1
1
Woman is a social category of people solely because female sexed people exist. Even the males who identify as women can only do so because female people exist.
1
0
Sex is reality, gender is sex stereotypes.
1
0
Non binary is nonsense.
1
1
Also, what is the stunning revelation in the OP? The tweet has been deleted. Is it “don’t always believe violent men without question when they tell you what “gender” they are? No shit.
Join the discussion