Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
More 'transgender' Nonsense?
I hate to break it to you 'Mr' McConnell, but men cannot give birth. They just can't. And no amount of legislation or reassignment surgery will EVER change that basic fact. What has, in fact happened, is a woman masquerading as a man has given birth. Women give birth and men do not, because they cannot.
https:/
Am I alone in thinking this is nuts?
Monty Python were truly prophetic in their sketch!
https:/
Am I alone in thinking this is nuts?
Monty Python were truly prophetic in their sketch!
Answers
The nonsense begins here: //He was able to get pregnant but was legally a man when the child was born.// It was perpetuated when “his” brief said she was disappointed with the original ruling (when Sir Andrew MacFarlane ruled that people who give birth are mothers, regardless of their gender). It was continued when a High Court judge ruled that he had an...
21:26 Fri 25th Oct 2019
Anyone with a rational response will not resort to name-calling. Trying to silence others, is just bullying and no way of achieving anything.
Ironically, it seems to be the people who know least about it, who are accusing others of "ignorance".
I would say- you couldn't make it up- but clearly, some can.
Ironically, it seems to be the people who know least about it, who are accusing others of "ignorance".
I would say- you couldn't make it up- but clearly, some can.
Yes it's interesting and opens a wider (though I hope not entirely irrelevant) debate.
It can be seen from my contribution to this thread that I do not quite agree with "Freddy" seeking to be named as the child's father. No doubt, among the Great and the Good, I will attract the label "transphobic". But (even allowing for the misuse of "phobia") I do not hate transgender people. I have no particular views on them one way or the other if for no other reason because I don't know any and none of them has ever caused me any harm or difficulties. For me to hate them would be irrational.
But people in this country are entitled to hold reasoned debates without being given a label that describes them as hateful. I don't hate Freddy. I just don't agree with what she is trying to do and my disagreement stems from the effect I believe it will have on the unfortunate child. Far too much emphasis is placed on the main participants in matters like this and none for those around that may be effected. It needs to be discussed without fear of the debate turning into a vendetta against those who hold different views.
It can be seen from my contribution to this thread that I do not quite agree with "Freddy" seeking to be named as the child's father. No doubt, among the Great and the Good, I will attract the label "transphobic". But (even allowing for the misuse of "phobia") I do not hate transgender people. I have no particular views on them one way or the other if for no other reason because I don't know any and none of them has ever caused me any harm or difficulties. For me to hate them would be irrational.
But people in this country are entitled to hold reasoned debates without being given a label that describes them as hateful. I don't hate Freddy. I just don't agree with what she is trying to do and my disagreement stems from the effect I believe it will have on the unfortunate child. Far too much emphasis is placed on the main participants in matters like this and none for those around that may be effected. It needs to be discussed without fear of the debate turning into a vendetta against those who hold different views.
it's a women always will be, you can remove the bits, but it's still a women, i include all transgender people, am i phobic..no just telling the truth, today we have to much political correctness, i want, i demand, if you disagree you are phobic racist xenophobe bigot etc
but the fact is a (woman) had a baby..
but the fact is a (woman) had a baby..
// //It's unfortunate that English uses "man" and "woman" to refer both to the biological sexes//
Bizarre. I can’t think of another language that doesn’t use specific words to differentiate between men and women. //
I can't either, but, as you surely knew, the sentence you're quoting went on to talk about gender v. sex. I have no quibble with using "man" to mean a biological male, but it *also* can be used to mean "someone who is seen to exhibit masculine characteristics and outward appearance", which is often, but not always, the same thing.
I have no quibble with the rest of the post, I should say, but I do want to empathise that my point was about the confusion between sex and gender, not the existence of man/woman per se.
Bizarre. I can’t think of another language that doesn’t use specific words to differentiate between men and women. //
I can't either, but, as you surely knew, the sentence you're quoting went on to talk about gender v. sex. I have no quibble with using "man" to mean a biological male, but it *also* can be used to mean "someone who is seen to exhibit masculine characteristics and outward appearance", which is often, but not always, the same thing.
I have no quibble with the rest of the post, I should say, but I do want to empathise that my point was about the confusion between sex and gender, not the existence of man/woman per se.
// But people in this country are entitled to hold reasoned debates without being given a label that describes them as hateful. I don't hate Freddy. ... //
I don't intend to get involved in this thread any more than I already have, but for what little it's worth I agree with the principle here. What crosses the line is the use of words such as "freak", or a point-blank refusal to accept that transgender people have any rights at all -- the latter of which I think most people in this thread have no quibble with. Or, at least, as long as the existence in society of transgender people has minimal impact on them personally, which is fair enough even if I disagree with that.
I don't intend to get involved in this thread any more than I already have, but for what little it's worth I agree with the principle here. What crosses the line is the use of words such as "freak", or a point-blank refusal to accept that transgender people have any rights at all -- the latter of which I think most people in this thread have no quibble with. Or, at least, as long as the existence in society of transgender people has minimal impact on them personally, which is fair enough even if I disagree with that.
“What crosses the line is the use of words such as "freak", or a point-blank refusal to accept that transgender people have any rights at all”
These people are the absolute definition of the word ‘freak.’ And they have no more or no less rights than anybody else. A bloke putting on a frock, or a woman shoving some padding down the front of her trousers does not suddenly have any more rights just because they choose to live in a fantasy world.
These people are the absolute definition of the word ‘freak.’ And they have no more or no less rights than anybody else. A bloke putting on a frock, or a woman shoving some padding down the front of her trousers does not suddenly have any more rights just because they choose to live in a fantasy world.
//I have no quibble with using "man" to mean a biological male, but it *also* can be used to mean "someone who is seen to exhibit masculine characteristics and outward appearance", which is often, but not always, the same thing. //
and yet if you were to use the word *woman* to mean "someone who is seen to exhibit feminine characteristics and outward appearance", you'd doubtless be accused of transphobia - for, we're told, women can have beards, hairy backs..... and penises.
and yet if you were to use the word *woman* to mean "someone who is seen to exhibit feminine characteristics and outward appearance", you'd doubtless be accused of transphobia - for, we're told, women can have beards, hairy backs..... and penises.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV33 mins ago
ChatterBank58 mins ago
Crosswords96 mins ago