f_c_dundee

Jings my memory isn't that good. But sharing a spectator article or 3 doesn't mean I heartily support those who would seek to cause that unrest. Both things are true imo. There are problems inherent in not using sex as the means of segregating public life at times. Right wing types are also taking advantage. The newspapers probably just like extra sales and subscription money. I have heard a lot of people who've never bought the times or telegraph before, but have since bought them in order to read articles by the aforementioned female journalists who jumped ship there, for example. What's the solution then, to criticism of self id and of medicalisation of children and young people. Should we shut up, because it's feeding the disruption? You say truly earnest debate between academics is fine, but it's different in the real world. Hasn't the philosophical concept of queer theory also caused problems in the same way outside academic pondering? And been co-opted by people happy to cause trouble too. You can't deny there were many years of #nodebate where discussion was not welcome. That's kinda why we're here, I think with extremes having now been highlighted to push for discussion.

And where, pray tell did you get this random idea? (From anything whatsoever that I've said)

What's gender essentialism, exactly? Language being 'degraded' is a bit of a dramatic way of putting it. It's not about some kind of philosophical purity of the language though. We need a word for women that doesn't include some men and the same for men. We need to be able to exclude men (or women) in some situations for reasons of risk or for privacy and dignity when undressed or otherwise vulnerable. Also to avoid gathering incorrect data - for things like the census, but also for recording crimes, health statistics. No one wishes to stop any individual from expressing themselves how they wish - the exception perhaps being men who dress e.g. in miniscule dresses at work which would not be accepted without batting an eyelid if worn by a woman. I do not personally wish to conform to the gendered expectations placed on my sex by some sections of society. I feel exceptionally uncomfortable in a dress and like an idiot in make up. I am 0% interested in fashion or fancy nails, I like what I like and if it coincides with fashion it's a fluke, like combat trousers in the 90s . No one at all GC is saying people can't express themselves how they want and do whatever job or sport they choose. They just can't be the opposite sex. They can be treated as such out of politeness at times, but this doesn't extend to a right to be recognised as their desired sex absolutely anywhere, because this affects others rights to things like single sex services and competitive sport. Yes even park run. Even grass roots football. What % of us are going to be elite sports people? No that many. So having your weekly crack at the park run record for your age group placed out of reach for a male to feel included, is just as crap as the fact that males can set records that will be nigh on impossible to beat in women's sport. It's not about shitting on anyone, just that the realities must be considered and that's not bigotry. It's not the same as homophobia, because giving the right to same sex marriage and protection from discrimination affected no one else apart from those in the relationship. As mentioned above- yes, people who are already homophobic and probably many other varieties of arsehole are happy to leap in and be genuinely derogatory. In the UK trans people are already protected from discrimination under a protected characteristic, I know this isn't the case everywhere. It's hard to focus on one aspect when the effects are very wide ranging. I've already had a week off for "abusive behaviour".

Yes, and the fact that so many of the men and women on the GC side are actually lesbian and gay themselves (and/or gender non conforming thenselves) in a lot of cases makes it particularly nuts to tar everyone with this brush. The 'traditionalist Christian fixed gender roles for men and women' mindset is clearly way more of a thing in the USA, hence the above observation. I have started to read what sounds like a sensible tweet/comment which then segues into things about the Lord and whatever He thinks and maybe just blatant homophobia. There is an overlap between the 2 groups in the belief that there is harm being done to children and to laws with words that mean things (clearly defined things). That's about it as far as I can see.

'Turned up to support'. So no one invited them, requested their presence or otherwise sought this association. They just turned up to an open public event. I don't believe that all pro-self id demonstrators are in favour of crime , just because, for example, Sarah Jane Barker - convicted of torture + kidnap and attempted murder - has been welcomed to shout into a megaphone at several protest events? Because that would be really stupid. (seen here with Labour buddies as well: https://twitter.com/NadiaWhittomeMP/status/1615797910859399168?s=20 ) Posie isn't anyone's leader, she's done a good job making a noise to get more discussion started, I'll give her that. I also probably disagree with some stuff she thinks. There are a whole bunch of people from many walks of life who would like to go back to when we could say things like "sex is important in many situations" without being called bigots and maybe have proper discussions. Like how words have meanings, and the impact of that fact on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults, data collection, prison and hospital policy etc etc. It's more of a poor attempt at discrediting by association.

That's pretty much what bothers me I guess. Many things I say are jumped on not because the poster is expressing how they specifically disagree with my point , but because it was in the wrong newspaper or is the same view as Posie Parker or other individual classed as a bigot etc. Maybe also worth pointing out how many (leftie, feminist) journalists have already jumped ship from the Guardian a few years back, landing up at the Times and Telegraph where they maybe didn't feel they fitted, but were able to publish articles on this topic. Personally I am tired of all the click baity world of news now and every publication lets folk turn out any amount of shite and opinion pieces. But at least the 'Tory' papers published some of both varieties of it on this topic I reckon. NB not a Nazi fan, nor a supporter of some of the Antifa behaviour at some of the protests either. Mild critical comment about one doesny actually mean big fan of the other. I actually feel a little insane that I have to clarify that mad shit. Here's where we are, I guess.

Wasn't me started on about Nazis I repeat, bringing extremist bampots of any variety up isn't really helping anyone.

Aye fair play. It has actually happened on a few occasions (e.g. during protests at the Wii Spa), but I think that both sets of extremists would latch on to any old shite for a bit of a stramash and drama. So both probably should be ignored as a distraction from the actual issues. Defo no tin foil hat here or Q Anon leanings. Just eye rolling at the attempts to obscure the fact that it's a big group of middle aged mothers and young women that have driven a lot of this in the UK, not the right wing bampots. In other news, hopefully someone has indeed got 'not an expert' Susie Green's number, now that the Tavistock have had to release the 300 pages of correspondence they didn't have with her/Mermaids. . https://archive.ph/2023.05.30-062440/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/05/30/the-cult-of-gender-ideology-finally-crumbling/

Not seen many "GC" protesters ever turning up masked like they're scared to be identified though. No one invited the Nazis. I don't think you even believe that - it's just a convenient diversion. Same as no one invites dubious Antifa types to come and get involved, but they have turned up on "the other side" anyway, especially in the US. The whole point of the Let Women Speak events is that anyone can rock up, there's no control over that. It was also the police in Australia, if I recall correctly, that were seen allowing the Nazi salute dudes up onto the steps... There's no way that "arm trans kids" sign would be taken as tongue in cheek in the other direction either, when expressing an opposing view is "violence". I seem to remember "decapitate terfs" was another delightful message a while back, unfortunately captured behind a photo of MSPs for posterity. With a bit of tongue in cheek guillotine art work - nice.

The fact that all you will do about JKR or Posie Parker is talk about how they were seen near a bad guy, speaks volumes. Where is your discussion about what's been said? The libellous statement in the article is ok with you? "the claim he published in iNews that a Let Women Speak event in Australia 'staged a mass Nazi salute'. This is a lie so brazen, so easily disprovable and so libellous, I'm amazed it was allowed into print by a supposedly reputable news source."

Not really conspiratorial, but I'll accept it was a throwaway comment. You'd think that some fker responsible for dictionary maintenance would go "haud on a minute, words have meanings" though. Nah. Words have meanings and circular definitions are no use. But the whole "no that actually is a woman (or man)" and I will call you a bigot if you won't accept it, has escalated slightly, no? Yes, due to the some of the many dumbass stereotypes and gender based restrictions applied to women throughout the years, in order to control them, generally. The historical women (e.g. Joan of Arc) being retrospectively painted as "maybe trans" are the dumbest of all. Women tried to pass as men because of the restrictions placed upon them, to train as doctors, to fight, to go out and get jobs, to vote etc. It's not the same thing.

It's really no a good look to pretend that you think posters are just *so stupid* that they are unaware of common things like the fact that new words and phrases are added to dictionaries. Lot of that on this thread. Man / Woman are not new words though. They are old words that already had a clearly defined and important meaning, to identify the sex of humans. Now we have added to the existing dictionary entry, a definition for men/women that includes members of the other group. Helpful how? If a definition of woman/man includes the phrase "person who identifies as a woman/man", that is rather circular is it not? Men + some women who identify as men = men women + some men who identify as women = women (War = Peace Freedom = Slavery Ignorance = Strength 2 + 2 =5 ) Because up until 10 or 15 years ago, the concept of gender identity was having very little impact on wider society, confined mostly to affecting those with the condition formerly known as 'gender identity disorder'. 2018 was the year that the consultations pushing for self ID forced women (mostly), to campaign more widely to point out the obvious potential issues. Feminists being critical of both gender stereotypes and the concept of gender identity superceding sex.

Pic below of my early 2000s paper dictionary which agrees. Do we all have to go along with it, because the dictionary companies caved and added an additional definition for man/woman? (the original definition is still the first one listed)

Note that Hayley Cropper was played by a female actor, wonder why? Sharron Davies sharing James Esses deconstruction of 'Emily' Bridges batshit statement... https://twitter.com/sharrond62/status/1662208608124149762?t=S1jQUwqPAZn-GNzy66Q5Kg&s=09 No trans person is banned from competing, they just have to compete in their own sex class like everyone else Do you know the % of trans people who have "the surgery" as you put it? It's probably a lot lower than you think... Much more common to have silicon chest implants or facial feminisation procedures and keep the tackle. Don't blame them - genital surgery on both men and women has horrendous rates of complications

That's why I said reported as and would be nuts You're not even doing the most basic reading. The fact so many fell for it (me included for a minute until I googled to see if it was a load of shite) kinda shows you how unsurprised we'd be if it wasn't true. And ties in to exactly what I said above. Right wing nutballs jumping on this to spread actual hate. edit: having read my post, it maybe wasn't as clear that I meant 'reported' in the loose sense of the word - as in that was what was spread for a while. I believe it was exacerbated by some woman making a video, wandering about ranting in the Target aisles!

they were reported as being for children, hence the reaction. i.e small boys tucking up their bits wtf. ETA that ripping out the whole Pride range was somewhat OTT ( i got the vibe the protesters are actual Right wing nutter types) , but the tucking swimwear for kids...don't disagree that would be a bit batshit.

Hello, nice to meet you. You must have missed the bit where we established I was on P&B donkeys ago (registered 2007) and blundered in here when I came back. Got a bit more time for football again, due to the bairns being a bit bigger and taking an interest. I can see what you mean about a few random 'registered on Saturday' accounts popping up and adding a green or red dot, but that's not me.

They are not slurs to the average person, they are descriptions of reality. I am not in someone's face shouting "you're not a man, you're a woman". No. Black women are mighty fucked off at TRAs saying every other day on Twitter, that it's wrong to say transwomen because that's like saying black women aren't women. That is so backwords it's unbelievable. Who the f**k is saying black women aren't women? Not women, that's for sure. It's racist AF to try and use that to make it look like being a transwoman is the same as being an actual black woman. would that be the dictionary updated fairly recently, when we decided words no longer meant what they had before? Very good.

see what I mean @Mr Waldo

You could say that. But then many trans woman also claim to be female. Words are not always allowed to have their previous distinct meanings now, for that would not be inclusive. We do not have a word which we are allowed to use to group all the adult human females previously known as woman, while excluding the male-bodied people who now say they are women. We are asked to use 'cis-women' thus grouping ourselves as only a subset of women. Cis is meaningless twaddle unless you believe yourself to have a gender identity. Clearly a trans woman is born male, or they wouldn't be trans. As a woman, I can't be a trans woman, but I could be a trans man. Can you see why I have to use the 'slurs' that I use such as trans identifying man/woman or female/male-bodied? The statement that transwomen are a type of woman, just like tall women or black women is also bullshit - tall women and black women are women - not men who identify as such. We could go round all day, but the language used is so important, such that everyone is clear what they are saying.

Which examples, out of interest? I just find it all very incurious. No engagement with what is being said on a genuine level. I was talking about the phenomenon of feeling the cognitive dissonance when your strongly held belief is questioned, but you are just shutting it down. I don't know if that explains it well. I expect discussions to involve a bit of "no I believe this not that because reasons". Not just what feels like "you are bigoted and cannot possibly be saying anything true so I will just reply with random stuff". And then repeat.

Holy f**k this is not about the legality or otherwise. How the f**k are we justifying amputating the healthy breasts of teenage girls, with no good evidence that this will help at all long term? Mucking around calling it 'top surgery' or 'chest masculinisation surgery' is hiding this from view. These are children, who are nowhere near their full brain development, making an irreversible decision, enabled by adults. It's wrong. There are already young women who gone on to have babies (some after detransition) and the fact they'd done this and had no breasts to feed their infant was devastating to them. I don't care if it's 10 or 100 girls who feel like that, it's just brutal and I can't believe you go "but meh, Gillick competence". Taking testosterone long term is likely to make young women sterile and can cause painful atrophy of the uterus and even the vagina. No fucker wants to hear this, but it's happening all the time and we're pretending it's fine? Perhaps in extreme distress medical treatment is warranted, almost everyone I have talked to accepts that. But to casually do this to children is just awful and so many are to scared to talk about it. Here's one reason why - politicians who freak out at a simple question. I don't care who asked them the question, before you have a diversion on that: https://twitter.com/OkayBiology/status/1661009993712402434?t=0z7_PY3IuXDlcpT0M3X8mA&s=09 Include also Kier '99.9% of women' Starmer, also perching on the coward fence. When discussion with clear language is stifled, I don't think it benefits anyone.

The post you quoted wasn't mentioning dangerous men, you were just trying to divert and make me look OTT I guess by trawling back a page or 2. I specifically mentioned the name of a surgeon who has a cavalier attitude to this surgery. There are many who do operate on teenagers. Breast removal counts. Even in the UK 16 year olds can be referred to have their breasts amputated at age 17. Yes that is 100% still a child. 50 girls were referred down to England for this in one year in Scotland.

Missed the bit where you showed the concept was clearly archaic. Hmm. Must have been in the post where anyone addressed any of the things I've *actually* said. <Checks for the words 'dangerous men' in my most recent posts... Nope. > I was discussing harm to the trans patients, not what harm the patients would cause. Jings Crivvens. Operations on babies, children or indeed any individuals with DSDs (not all of whom use or like the term intersex, not that you care) are vanishingly rare. You also know fine that double mastectomies on teenage girls come under the heading of "gender confirmation" surgery. It's not all about genital surgery. Hormones and blockers are medical treatment as well and they're not harmless and reversible. Harmful medical treatment should surely be a last resort, not a first line solution? Yes I'm aware that x% of 10000 will be bigger than x% of 500. Simple maths indeed. But the oft quoted low "less than 2%" or whatever it is this week, of transition regret" figures are looking less and less likely to be accurate - while surgery is advertised to and performed on more young people. These low figures are often from follow up with patients within a few months of a procedure. Very little long term follow up has been bothered with, and any existing studies seem to have very low numbers and are of poor quality so far. (As an example, lurkers may wish to Google the thoroughly unpleasant Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher, who liked to post pictures of young female patients after surgery with the cute hashtag 'yeet the teets'. Plus advertising to them on social media with chatty wee videos. How nice. ) Definitely no money in it though, here's a lovely market projection for the sector from a few years back: projected to grow by billions! Nice! https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market Lots of nice figures there about the biggest players in the market and demographics (going up - surgery on girls!) . Hope that helps.