Jump to content

The Gender Debate


jamamafegan

Recommended Posts

On 25/05/2023 at 14:01, Mr Waldo said:

 

Woman

an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth

 My Oxford English Dictionary 

Female

  1. of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
     

So to me, a

  • trans woman is an adult human who lives and identifies as a person that can bear offspring...
  • woman is an adult human  that can bear offspring...

I've just realised that on asking the what is a woman question,the leaders of the three biggest parties in England all give 3 different answers?  Is it any wonder people are scratching there head?

😴😴😴😴😴😴😴

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Binos said:

😴😴😴😴😴😴😴

Good point, well made!

A dictionary definition was given to expand on a point. I replied with a dictionary definition and my opinion.

So, come on, educate me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Target's market capitalisation has fallen by $9 billion in the last week to $64 billion due to backlash against their Pride clothing line.


Socialists rn.

Choo choo Hype Train Hogwarts Legacy sold 216.000 copies on Steam so fat |  NeoGAF

Are you joking? The whole point of socialism is to oppose the ownership class profiting from work they don't do. If the parasites have seen a drop in the value of their "investments" then that's great news. 

Woke capitalism and socialism are two entirely different things. If capitalists want to cynically use trans people as pawns for their outrage marketing (or Black people - see Nike with Colin Kaepernick) then f**k them. I hope it backfires. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

Are you joking? The whole point of socialism is to oppose the ownership class profiting from work they don't do. If the parasites have seen a drop in the value of their "investments" then that's great news. 

Woke capitalism and socialism are two entirely different things. If capitalists want to cynically use trans people as pawns for their outrage marketing (or Black people - see Nike with Colin Kaepernick) then f**k them. I hope it backfires. 

Not so much the case here, Target have been visibly supporting the LGBTQ community (sponsoring Pride events etc) for about a decade. 
 

https://marketingtherainbow.info/case studies/cs retail/target

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

Not so much the case here, Target have been visibly supporting the LGBTQ community (sponsoring Pride events etc) for about a decade. 
 

https://marketingtherainbow.info/case studies/cs retail/target

Expanding their market and enfranchising new societal demographics is the motive behind all that is listed there. 

Target are opposed to unionisation of their workers (inluding LGBT workers), as expected: 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/10/first-thing-target-directing-managers-to-stop-workers-from-unionizing

 

Of course it's better that pro-LGBT rather than anti-LGBT marketing is used by these companies but it must be understood they're only instrumentalising the LGBT movement for their own profit. They can't be trusted in any way as their loyalty is only to their shareholders  and nobody else. That article shows how they went from funding the anti-LGBT politician to sponsoring (which provides advertising benefits unlike donation) pro-LGBT causes. That was in response to their changing market research not due to a corporate conscience which doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FreedomFarter said:

Expanding their market and enfranchising new societal demographics is the motive behind all that is listed there. 

Target are opposed to unionisation of their workers (inluding LGBT workers), as expected: 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/10/first-thing-target-directing-managers-to-stop-workers-from-unionizing

 

Of course it's better that pro-LGBT rather than anti-LGBT marketing is used by these companies but it must be understood they're only instrumentalising the LGBT movement for their own profit. They can't be trusted in any way as their loyalty is only to their shareholders  and nobody else. That article shows how they went from funding the anti-LGBT politician to sponsoring (which provides advertising benefits unlike donation) pro-LGBT causes. That was in response to their changing market research not due to a corporate conscience which doesn't exist.

More than likely. And TipRanks has them forecasted the share price as being up 22% at a minimum in the next 12 months with 17/23 analysts saying buy and the other 6 saying hold. But, y’know, what does that matter when we can post memes so old Philip Schofield would KB them. 
 

https://www.tipranks.com/stocks/tgt/forecast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Wow go Target. 22%.
Selling out the LGBTQ+ community is a real money maker.

They’re still selling the stuff online. And there were bomb threats against 4 stores in Utah today, so there’s certainly at least an element of looking out for staff welfare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mr Waldo said:

Good point, well made!

A dictionary definition was given to expand on a point. I replied with a dictionary definition and my opinion.

So, come on, educate me.

It wasn't so much against you 

The entire subject is an absolute yawnfest and effects an infinitesimal element of society 

Can't understand why so much debate is afforded to it

Unless it's media driven desperately trying to fill column inches for 24hr rolling news,  again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BTFD said:

Just a reminder to "new" posters that switching accounts before replying to yourself is far more convincing.

image.png.fba7b3386d9536094e6473b4aaa6b5fb.png

On a serious note does the Emily Bridges statement not sum up the other extreme. of this whole debate? 

Suggesting "genocide" is disgraceful in this context. We are talking about biological males competing in female sport ffs.

Surely any sensible person would condemn this?

This doesn't help the trans community one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, andyg83 said:

On a serious note does the Emily Bridges statement not sum up the other extreme. of this whole debate? 

Suggesting "genocide" is disgraceful in this context. We are talking about biological males competing in female sport ffs.

Surely any sensible person would condemn this?

This doesn't help the trans community one bit.

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement’s-ideology-and-practice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...