The Gender Debate

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, carpetmonster said:

The movie is on YouTube. Gender criticals are never out of the newspapers or off the television. Nobody is being silenced. ‘You’re a man in a dress’ is not intellectual discourse by my standards although it may well be by yours. 

Academic discussion of the film was quite clearly silenced, by the actions of a bunch of zealots. A university does not function through YouTube as anyone who has actually fucking experienced learning or teaching in an adult education institute would know all too well over the past 3 years. 

The fundamental role of a university is to provide a forum for the free discussion and debate of ideas. If you or your zealot mates don't like that, then you have no place at such an institution. 

Quote

The ideologies of the likes of Walsh are leading to a democratically elected representative not being allowed to speak for her constituents. They’re leading to Miami’s favorite resident, Dwyane Wade, leaving Florida because his family ‘does not feel comfortable there’. 

I really couldn't care less about your gun-infested nick of a country. 

[JohnC]

23 minutes ago, strichener said:

I'll just leave this here.

If it's consistency you're after, you'll be waiting a long time.

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

Rates of detransition are extremely low. Rates of regret around gender affirming care are lower still. Good to know you can speak for autistic people because they’re ‘incoherent’ tho. 

I didn't say that autistic children were incoherent - it's time that you either signed up to some remedial English reading classes or the mods empty you for being a trolling clown. 

[carpetmonster]

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

Academic discussion of the film was quite clearly silenced, by the actions of a bunch of zealots. A university does not function through YouTube as anyone who has actually fucking experienced learning or teaching in an adult education institute would know all too well over the past 3 years. 

The fundamental role of a university is to provide a forum for the free discussion and debate of ideas. If you or your zealot mates don't like that, then you have no place at such an institution. 
 

We must debate! If you don’t like our debate, leave! 

 

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

I really couldn't care less about your gun-infested nick of a country. 

Your government does. Your media does. Enjoy. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by carpetmonster

[carpetmonster]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

I didn't say that autistic children were incoherent - it's time that you either signed up to some remedial English reading classes or the mods empty you for being a trolling clown. 

Mods can empty me whenever they fancy. It’s their call. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by carpetmonster

[Bairnardo]

What carpetmonster is doing isnt even close to what that dundee roaaster was doing  What a minter to call for a ban to try and win an argument

[sophia]

27 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

What carpetmonster is doing isnt even close to what that dundee roaaster was doing  What a minter to call for a ban to try and win an argument

There are those that seem to have been absent during the self awareness module.

There is stuff here that is objectively unreadable.

Trolling is one thing and so too is overbearing Robin Mcalpine like dogmatism that only the very few are interested in.

 

[scottsdad]

Not been here in a while. Who has taken up Oaksoft's cause? 

[f_c_dundee]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

What carpetmonster is doing isnt even close to what that dundee roaaster was doing  What a minter to call for a ban to try and win an argument

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

What carpetmonster is doing isnt even close to what that dundee roaaster was doing  What a minter to call for a ban to try and win an argument

I agree, at least @f_c_dundee was posting responses to other posts rather than posting drivel and then taking 10 posts to explain why they weren't going to read articles that didn't support their views.

[f_c_dundee]

4 minutes ago, strichener said:

I agree, at least @f_c_dundee was posting responses to other posts rather than posting drivel and then taking 10 posts to explain why they weren't going to read articles that didn't support their views.

I don't think it was a call for a ban either - I took it as a wry comparison to when I got "a wee holiday".

Cos this site has a bit of a sense of humour, eh! 

[Salt n Vinegar]

I've tended to stay out of this " debate" , because apart from one acquaintance I have very little direct experience of the humans involved in the issue. At the risk of asking really annoying questions, when folk are going off their collective nut about people accessing "single-sex" places, who is going to decide if someone looks 'sufficiently female' to be allowed admittance to a 'female only' space without some form of checking, what will the nature of the checking be for those on the "wrong" side of that superficial assessment and who is going to be trusted carry out the checking? After all, someone who may look to all intents and purposes female may well indeed have the dreaded boaby. I've seen some politicians over the years that might give rise to questions. 

Further, who checks now, before any law changes?

And finally, which toilet or changing room does a trans male use? If they were born biologically female, should they use the 'female' toilet or changing room despite outwardly 'male' appearance?

(Point of information - drink has been taken.)

[Theroadlesstravelled]

13 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

Mostly at the moment, it is. Should the move prove successful, it'll spread. Walsh explained it in a tweet '"Here's what we should do: Pick a victim, gang up on it, and make an example of it. We can't boycott every woke company or even most of them. But we can pick one, it hardly matters which, and target it with a ruthless boycott campaign. Claim one scalp then move onto the next," Walsh tweeted.'

Do you know that Anheuser-Busch is a donor to the Republican party?
It seems like you'd be on his side here with a boycott of Bud Lite.

[carpetmonster]

38 minutes ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Do you know that Anheuser-Busch is a donor to the Republican party?
It seems like you'd be on his side here with a boycott of Bud Lite.

I did, yeah. I also read that Trump has a couple of $m of AB stock which might be why he stayed quiet. If I need piss beer I usually go for High Life (it’s cheaper and it tastes vaguely of beer), although I’m sure Miller-Coors are likely a bunch of wrong uns too. 

[DiscoStu]

16 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

You’re attempting to portray me as being misogynistic by the phrase ‘stay at home and watch YouTube, wimmin’ and the wee emoji. 
 

You didn’t. You accused me of being disingenuous by missing out that there was apparently to be a discussion after the film, which I wasn’t aware of. However, should Matt Walsh being allowed to spout hate - and no, I haven’t seen the movie, I’m just making an educated guess based on the rest of his entire life’s oeuvre - not be protested by those in his firing line? By the same logic it’s those who oppose Orange Walks/Britain First demos being the issue rather than the groups themselves. 
 

I’m sure you’ll correct me by shifting the goalposts again and telling me I’m a big silly and lots more . Go for your life; I’m getting all nostalgic, it’s like Oaksoft was never binned. 

Your true sectarian colours shining through for all to see.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

18 minutes ago, DiscoStu said:

Your true sectarian colours shining through for all to see.

Nice to see even shite sock puppet/dotting accounts posting to the forum. 

Bravo. 

[f_c_dundee]

21 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I've tended to stay out of this " debate" , because apart from one acquaintance I have very little direct experience of the humans involved in the issue. At the risk of asking really annoying questions, when folk are going off their collective nut about people accessing "single-sex" places, who is going to decide if someone looks 'sufficiently female' to be allowed admittance to a 'female only' space without some form of checking, what will the nature of the checking be for those on the "wrong" side of that superficial assessment and who is going to be trusted carry out the checking? After all, someone who may look to all intents and purposes female may well indeed have the dreaded boaby. I've seen some politicians over the years that might give rise to questions. 

Further, who checks now, before any law changes?

And finally, which toilet or changing room does a trans male use? If they were born biologically female, should they use the 'female' toilet or changing room despite outwardly 'male' appearance?

(Point of information - drink has been taken.)

 

Attempting to be brief, but have also had a beverage or 2 while watching the horror that is Dundee FC

 

They're not annoying questions, bit quite commonly asked.

Really, it's not all about toilets.  In the USA there is a lot of chat about 'Bathroom Bills" which tends to divert discussion at times.

 

There quite obviously wouldn't and shouldn't ever be checks, genital or otherwise - that's a nonsense idea.

 

We managed without even *thinking* about checks for many years, when transsexuals (as was the description in the original UK GRC legislation) genuinely were a tiny minority, estimated at around 4-5000 people in the UK in 2004. Estimates now of how many people identify as trans vary a lot but you're now talking about multiples of 6 figures, not 4 figures. The bar is also a lot lower thanks to organisations being advised to implement self id policies "ahead of the law", in the assumption that GRA 2004 reforms would go through unchallenged. Plus the 'umbrella' expanding to include cross dressers, 'gender fluid' and 'non binary' individuals. 

 

What has changed, in essence, is the push to discard previous societal norms - that males should not be accessing or expecting to use women's changing rooms or toilets (see also prisons, hospital wards, refuges, support groups etc. etc). 

 

The societal protection afforded by the taboo of entering opposite sex toilets (or any other single sex spaces) is weakened by this, if people are worried to challenge anyone and/or if unisex facilities are the only ones available. 

 

Women who have transitioned and present as male is a different issue. While they might cause alarm to some women initially if they appear  convincingly male, any women I've encountered online or in RL is unbothered by them using female facilities in principle.

The the overriding issue in discussion is the likely behaviour and/or danger from men, who are *on average* larger, stronger and hugely more likely to commit violent and sexual crimes. 

 

The reason trans men are mentioned much less often, is that there are fewer of them loudly demanding access to male spaces and they are not exactly causing a risk/nuisance to men. It's not zero - ask the gay men who don't have any interest in them. However although they aren't always respecting men's wishes or men's single sex spaces, dating apps etc., They are more at risk themselves e.g if they insisted on going to a male prison. 

 

A mess, really.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

The Libs must have shite political commentators.

[Wee Bully]

12 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

Attempting to be brief, but have also had a beverage or 2 while watching the horror that is Dundee FC

 

They're not annoying questions, bit quite commonly asked.

Really, it's not all about toilets.  In the USA there is a lot of chat about 'Bathroom Bills" which tends to divert discussion at times.

 

There quite obviously wouldn't and shouldn't ever be checks, genital or otherwise - that's a nonsense idea.

 

We managed without even *thinking* about checks for many years, when transsexuals (as was the description in the original UK GRC legislation) genuinely were a tiny minority, estimated at around 4-5000 people in the UK in 2004. Estimates now of how many people identify as trans vary a lot but you're now talking about multiples of 6 figures, not 4 figures. The bar is also a lot lower thanks to organisations being advised to implement self id policies "ahead of the law", in the assumption that GRA 2004 reforms would go through unchallenged. Plus the 'umbrella' expanding to include cross dressers, 'gender fluid' and 'non binary' individuals. 

 

What has changed, in essence, is the push to discard previous societal norms - that males should not be accessing or expecting to use women's changing rooms or toilets (see also prisons, hospital wards, refuges, support groups etc. etc). 

 

The societal protection afforded by the taboo of entering opposite sex toilets (or any other single sex spaces) is weakened by this, if people are worried to challenge anyone and/or if unisex facilities are the only ones available. 

 

Women who have transitioned and present as male is a different issue. While they might cause alarm to some women initially if they appear  convincingly male, any women I've encountered online or in RL is unbothered by them using female facilities in principle.

The the overriding issue in discussion is the likely behaviour and/or danger from men, who are *on average* larger, stronger and hugely more likely to commit violent and sexual crimes. 

 

The reason trans men are mentioned much less often, is that there are fewer of them loudly demanding access to male spaces and they are not exactly causing a risk/nuisance to men. It's not zero - ask the gay men who don't have any interest in them. However although they aren't always respecting men's wishes or men's single sex spaces, dating apps etc., They are more at risk themselves e.g if they insisted on going to a male prison. 

 

A mess, really.

Sexual predators are well known for not entering women’s single sex spaces at the moment due to “taboo”. 

[f_c_dundee]

5 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

Sexual predators are well known for not entering women’s single sex spaces at the moment due to “taboo”. 

Yes, that was the case. 

 

Although it's rare overall, the drift to self ID has enabled chancers, I don't believe you can deny that.

 

I've pinched an explanation that I saw shared of the criminal/ social theory involved from someone more eloquent than me and included their link to Wikipedia:

"en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routine_activity_theory

 

A crime exists because there is a combination of an offender, a suitable target and a lack of a capable guardian.

 

At the moment, the courtesy system means people using/supplying women's spaces act as a capable guardian as they can challenge any male appearing person if they sense a threat. (And trans women have been using our spaces unchallenged for years, which shows that if no threat is perceived women are happy for trans women to share space)

 

If self-ID comes in, women and girls won't be able to perform that capable guardian function. Indeed we already see guidance suggesting that women raising concerns are the problem and should be the ones asked to use private spaces instead.

 

Routine activity theory shows that removal of the capable guardian will increase crimes”

 

I've also seen it described using the "Swiss cheese model" - 2 of the layers of protection are sex segregated spaces and the people raising the concerns.

 

It's not about demonising trans people, it's about realising the potential effect of these societal changes and dealing with them, not denying they exist.