Zern

Of course i don't. They're women. The certificate of authenticity makes them legit.

I agree, and often express the same sentiment towards FC Dundee fans. Not prejudiced though. I treat them almost exactly the same as real people.

The debate over transgender rights was lost when legislation was passed in 2014. The GRR bill also passed. Both those debates had input from the so-called gender critical crowd prior to passing. All their arguments ended in the same place; a belief in fixed gender roles based on personal prejudice. The ick factor. They don't have a rational basis for their beliefs. The medical science supports the legislation that transgender people can, and do exist. So they have been granted rights. Its been that way for nearly a decade. You have posted wild-eyed stories intended to shock, outright lies, fictions and extreme hypebole in an attempt to elicit a negative reaction from the reader, and direct it towards transgender people. It is not intended to provoke informed debate because you are misinforming people from the get go. There is another strand to this; I am very aware that the Conservative administration in Westminster is deeply unpopular and are attempting to divert the anger directed at them towards minorities; immigrants and trangender people being targeted specifically. So when i see some diddy from Dundee repeating culture war talking points i find myself dismayed that you are doing the tories dirty work.

No better than yours. At least i didn't got to all the trouble of creating an sockpuppet to support my bullshit.

That's not a demand they are making. The reason your side of the argument is unable to gain any purchase in debates anywhere in the UK is because you cannot give a good reason other than the fact you dislike the idea of trangrender people in general. The ick factor. The Roman Catholic Church shares your opinion, but go further in the belief of a fixed gender extending to the correction of sexuality. They lost this fight too. What's crazy is that this debate was lost years ago, and the recent GRR legislation only served to show how utterly bonkers the opposition was.

Well that is incorrect. Plenty of people are saying they should not exist we've mentioned one group already who are famous for they 1930s nostalgia and arm exercises. The Russian Federation they enforce the non-existence of trans people entirely.

You were the one complaining of the lack of proper discussion. I invited you to focus on one aspect where you can identify an issue caused by the equalities act being implemented. If you are unable to do that then it is you who is failing to engage in proper discussion. This, to me, appears to be your core belief. You are entitled to your beliefs, but they do not override the rights of transgender people to exist.

The idea that language is being degraded is bullshit, that you are in any way safeguarding anyone by shitting on transgender people is a fiction and the idea that you are being called a bigot for saying "sex is important in many situations" is patently false. Posie Parker is not stimulating discussion. She' s preaching a gender essentialism that is bigoted. Being endorsed by Nazis only lends credence to this observation. Nor are you being denied a 'proper discussion'. It might help if you were to focus on one particular aspect that you feel requires changing in the equalities legislation.

Yes. Especially if it turned my football team's management were making speeches advocating the removal of transgender rights and were non-plussed by a bunch of Nazis standing nearby seig heiling their every word. I would be very concerned about that. Sadly politics is not an intellectually pure exercise and you can absolutely judge a person by the support they garner. If the Indy movement was getting vocal Nazi support it would be judged seven ways from Sunday and be constantly re-reminded of that fact. The problem is that anyone trying to ignore the Nazi support for Posie Parker is that you have yet to address why they were there. They are the ones saying they support her and they are they ones approving of her stance of removing transgender as a protected characteristic. Do you really think they have good reasons for this?

The association exists because the fuckers turned up to support a self-identifying leader of the Gender Critical movement.

The name of the fallacy in question is argumentum ad Hitlerum.

No-one has tried to portray the gender-critical lobby as a whole, as Nazi mate. We called the Nazis that were throwing Nazi salutes Nazis.

Posie Parker seems to be pretty extreme. Gender Policing? That is not a well-thought out idea at all.

I think your misunderstanding what Godwin's law is describing. There are appropriate places for discussion of Nazis. WW2 forums, History forums, Politics forums. Hypothetically; if a bunch of Nazis turned up to support a Lib Dem conference, it would be weird to have someone criticise mention of that fact by citing Godwin's Law.

Idiom. Odd thing to object to. I thought you were going away from this thread?

It's a bit difficult to 'both sides' an issue like this when the Nazis are firmly on one side. Trans supporting events are also open to all, and yet you have no examples of Nazis rocking up in support. You do get a few objecting though. They usually stand near the GC lot. Fascist adjacent.

lol, that's a lot of verbiage to distract from the fact that you did not need to invite the Nazis. They heard what Posie has been saying and approve entirely of their own accord. They turned up to support the rhetoric, they like what is being said, and are totally down to clown when it comes to targeting minorities purely on the basis of identity. It's kindof their whole thing.

Looks more tongue-in-cheek to me, i think the clue is the Howitzer within the Wendy house and it being a UK demo. I doubt there is any serious demand to make the MoD release its artillery for personal protection. Is that the most extreme example you could find? Because when it comes to extremists attending anti-trans events we have actual Nazis.

Her speech has been criticised plenty. What made this speech different was the enthusiastic cries of "Seig Heil" that followed her every pronouncement. I think it is generally a sign that you are doing badly in life when you find yourself having Nazi cheerleaders. You may disagree.

Gender-bending pokes at the pretension of fixed roles for genders, that's kind of the whole point, and our acceptance of it speaks to the long history of recognising how artificial the boundaries between men and woman are in practice. It's because we use signifiers and shorthand to make a decision on what we are being presented with. It what allowed Bonnies Prince Charlies to pass in safety. I expect whoever updated teh OED did inded say that word have meanings. Many meanings for some words. I think the word 'set' has probably one of the most expanded number of meanings in the dictionary, somewhere in the high 30's. A very versatile word that. I notice you shed not one tear over your own additional meaning being added, no wringing of hands at the adulteration of that word. You have almost no real insight or criticism on traditional gender roles, instead being largely fixated on a perceived wrongness of trangender people in general. Shouldn't you be called trangender critical instead of gender critical? To avoid confusion and all.

It's really hard to maintain the facade of being the "good guys" when the "baddies" turn up and start saluting your speeches.

Well, when someone claims that the additional meaning was added due to "the dictionaries caving" i can only deduce that they are unaware of how dictionaries operate. Are you able to provide any evidence for you claim? Or is this more conspiratorial muttering on you part? Yes, the term is imprecise. Circular even. That's because language is imprecise, general and not a philosophical treatise. Our ideas of what 'man' and 'woman' has changed as our culture has changed. Gender-bending is nothing new, we've always had stories where man passes as a woman and vice-versa. We've always used that to p***k the norms of society. Shakespeare is an obvious touchstone, and one that becomes all the more interesting when you realise that women where not allowed to act in the theatre so ALL his women where in fact played by men.

For "the dictionary companies caved" read; they updated themselves, as they are wont to do. Regularly. New words list March 2022 | Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com) Its almost as if a dictionary is a descriptive list of words and meanings in common usage and the only thing forcing them to update is people using and accepting the terms. Oh and from that link i can show you this: gender critical adj. (a) critical of traditional beliefs about gender, esp. based on the perspective of gender feminism (gender feminism n.); (b) critical of the concept of gender identity, or the belief that gender identity outweighs or is more significant than biological sex. That 2nd definition, only added in 2018.

That's been the tory mantra at FMQs for over a decade. However it is the UK government that refuses to work with the Scottish Government. Brexit is a case in point. At every stage the Scottish Government sought to work with the UK and was dismissed, rebuffed and ignored. The GRR bill is example of how the SNP/Greens work when in government. The SNP/Greens had the numbers to vote it through as a partisan issue, they did not do that and sought buy-in from every other party in the Scottish Legislature. They done this on other bills too. That's an example of working for benefit of us all. It's not that they are not willing to deal with the UK gov, it's more that the present UK gov refuses to admit the Scottish Government to have any legitimacy or say in UK policy that affects Scotland or even Scottish policy at present.

It's not that the beliefs are questioned, dismissing others is fairly easy. It is when those beliefs are contradicted by reality. In the case of the UFO cult. The leader was fond of making prophesies. They began vague enough so her followers provided enough hits to match the predictions. War, unrest that sort of stuff. As it progressed her predictions became more and more specific, more detailed culminating in an exact date, time and place where the UFO was going to arrive a pick every one of the believers. The UFO, obviously, did not arrive. The cult shut itself away for week before announcing that the UFO had arrived 'spiritually' and that they were now free to spread to good news. Note that the core belief is preserved and the reality (no UFO) is amended. In your case, you have a belief that medical care for trans people is harmful. In reality the medical profession is based on the principle of "do no harm" and has both the expertise and knowledge to recommend what is and is not harmful. They recommend trans care. So, to preserve the core belief you amend the reality. You propose an ulterior motive to 'do no harm', and replace it with something else. money, ideology.. anything to ease tension between the two contradictory positions.