Cocktail Drinkers, Are They Imbibing...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
'Woman' Rapes Two Women Using 'Her' Penis And Is Sent To A Woman's Jail.
https:/
Jesus wept - who agrees this is absurd?
And why the hell is the Mail referring to somebody with a penis who rapes women as 'her'?
In his most recent Netflix special, Ricky Gervais had a routine about this very scenario, which was hilarious because it was so absurd. Paraphrasing "He raped me", "you mean she raped you", "but he had a penis", "she had a penis you effing bigot". But clearly it wasn't that absurd after all!
Jesus wept - who agrees this is absurd?
And why the hell is the Mail referring to somebody with a penis who rapes women as 'her'?
In his most recent Netflix special, Ricky Gervais had a routine about this very scenario, which was hilarious because it was so absurd. Paraphrasing "He raped me", "you mean she raped you", "but he had a penis", "she had a penis you effing bigot". But clearly it wasn't that absurd after all!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
kuiper: The whole parsec thing was something from another thread that zebu want to use to bash me with, sadly he picked the wrong person as I have been studying astrophysics since I was 13. See my post on this thread at 21:38 on Thur 2/2. There is a link to a shot of my early exercise on the matter.
https:/
https:/
ToraToraTora/calc from one of my note books: https:/
From one Physics graduate to an Astrophysics graduate, putting it gently, you have not explained the concept of the parsec but merely demonstrated you can do trigonometry.
A gentle pointer, describe parallax and how that leads to producing your triangle :-)
ClareTGold/I did glance at New Judge's explanation for parsec/
I was rather hoping ClareTGold would provide a link to New Judge's parsec. It's doing my head in looking for it lol.
From one Physics graduate to an Astrophysics graduate, putting it gently, you have not explained the concept of the parsec but merely demonstrated you can do trigonometry.
A gentle pointer, describe parallax and how that leads to producing your triangle :-)
ClareTGold/I did glance at New Judge's explanation for parsec/
I was rather hoping ClareTGold would provide a link to New Judge's parsec. It's doing my head in looking for it lol.
Clare TGold
Let me embrace your presence on this board. You have made a poignant contribution.
Sincerest apologies for being blindsided by the bile you've had to read throughout this thread. I feel part responsible.
Had I remained hush hush, the scathing and offensive language used by some OPs towards transgender people would not have made its way on to this board.
Over the years, I have met some people who would now be described as fitting into one of the LGBTQI+ categories. Without exception, the generosity and kindness offered to me within these communities, not to mention the engaging and meaningful conversations, have undoubtedly made a positive impression and overall, led to enhancing my own life experiences.
No doubt it has been an arduous journey to get to where you are today. You come across as a person comfortable in your own skin. Mixing in circles that understand your transgenderism. However, it would be folly to think it all ends there.
Let stoicism be the victor of the day. Living free from persecution and being true to one's feelings is what really matters. May every campaign be successful in promoting those help groups to acquire more funding. Removing barriers and providing the necessary and ongoing support to the LGBTQI+ communities, as British society strives to be an inclusive place for all to live.
Remember, the law is on your side. No amount of ignorance can change that.
Let me embrace your presence on this board. You have made a poignant contribution.
Sincerest apologies for being blindsided by the bile you've had to read throughout this thread. I feel part responsible.
Had I remained hush hush, the scathing and offensive language used by some OPs towards transgender people would not have made its way on to this board.
Over the years, I have met some people who would now be described as fitting into one of the LGBTQI+ categories. Without exception, the generosity and kindness offered to me within these communities, not to mention the engaging and meaningful conversations, have undoubtedly made a positive impression and overall, led to enhancing my own life experiences.
No doubt it has been an arduous journey to get to where you are today. You come across as a person comfortable in your own skin. Mixing in circles that understand your transgenderism. However, it would be folly to think it all ends there.
Let stoicism be the victor of the day. Living free from persecution and being true to one's feelings is what really matters. May every campaign be successful in promoting those help groups to acquire more funding. Removing barriers and providing the necessary and ongoing support to the LGBTQI+ communities, as British society strives to be an inclusive place for all to live.
Remember, the law is on your side. No amount of ignorance can change that.
kuiperbelt // hoping ClareTGold would provide a link to New Judge's parsec. It's doing my head in looking for it //
https:/
https:/
Thanks for the welcome, all.
Zebu -- don't beat yourself up too much. This is a difficult topic to discuss, and it inspires strong reactions from either side. I took a good deal of time deciding whether even to contribute to this thread at all. AnswerBank has a history of being, shall we say, particularly sceptical about transgender politics. I draw a lot of comfort, then, from the fact that the only hostility I've ever encountered is usually confined to this (and other) online spaces. It's typical that people are less reserved about expressing themselves online, so, in the unlikely event that I ever met NewJudge or Naomi or TTT or whoever, then maybe they wouldn't be so confrontational. But perhaps it's best that we never find out.
TTT: // ... thank you for an erudite and well presented case. I don't agree with a lot of it but I do respect it ... //
Well, I'd hardly expected you to change your mind based on just one comment. I do hope that you'll try to engage a bit more with the issue seriously. Again, I understand that a thread prompted by a rapist who was very probably attempting to abuse the system isn't the best place to have such discussions, so I won't go any further here, but it was at least a start to see you talk about people who "do have genuine Gender Dysphoria". Something to explore in future, perhaps.
* * * *
Since we clearly can't get away from it, the parsec thing again: the undoubted flaw in both TTT and NJ's explanations is that they kept thinking only about the triangle formed by the star in question and the Earth in its orbit. The thing is, though, that the angle that's relevant is on the other side: you define it by measuring how the star has "moved", over the course of half a year, with respect to the presumably fixed stars even further away "behind" it. Similar triangles then allow you to relate that apparent motion to the triangle that TTT drew, and, because the motion was in the end due to Earth's orbit, it's then convenient to define it in terms of one AU.
Still, I don't think either explanation was wrong enough to get het up about so long afterwards. They were just incomplete.
Zebu -- don't beat yourself up too much. This is a difficult topic to discuss, and it inspires strong reactions from either side. I took a good deal of time deciding whether even to contribute to this thread at all. AnswerBank has a history of being, shall we say, particularly sceptical about transgender politics. I draw a lot of comfort, then, from the fact that the only hostility I've ever encountered is usually confined to this (and other) online spaces. It's typical that people are less reserved about expressing themselves online, so, in the unlikely event that I ever met NewJudge or Naomi or TTT or whoever, then maybe they wouldn't be so confrontational. But perhaps it's best that we never find out.
TTT: // ... thank you for an erudite and well presented case. I don't agree with a lot of it but I do respect it ... //
Well, I'd hardly expected you to change your mind based on just one comment. I do hope that you'll try to engage a bit more with the issue seriously. Again, I understand that a thread prompted by a rapist who was very probably attempting to abuse the system isn't the best place to have such discussions, so I won't go any further here, but it was at least a start to see you talk about people who "do have genuine Gender Dysphoria". Something to explore in future, perhaps.
* * * *
Since we clearly can't get away from it, the parsec thing again: the undoubted flaw in both TTT and NJ's explanations is that they kept thinking only about the triangle formed by the star in question and the Earth in its orbit. The thing is, though, that the angle that's relevant is on the other side: you define it by measuring how the star has "moved", over the course of half a year, with respect to the presumably fixed stars even further away "behind" it. Similar triangles then allow you to relate that apparent motion to the triangle that TTT drew, and, because the motion was in the end due to Earth's orbit, it's then convenient to define it in terms of one AU.
Still, I don't think either explanation was wrong enough to get het up about so long afterwards. They were just incomplete.
//I was rather hoping ClareTGold would provide a link to New Judge's parsec. It's doing my head in looking for it lol.//
It was at 20:06 on 4/1/23, with a slightly extended explanation at 22:10 on the same day, in this question:
https:/
It was recalled from memory (of a long time ago) and not from Google. It may not have been precisely scientifically correct but was the best could do. For the record, I believe the question posed was "Unless the definition of a parsec is known or provided, how is anyone meant to calculate the distance in light-years?" so I thought the mathematical definition was more important than to get involved with the principle of parallax. I do understand parallax (I recall an experiment with pins in front of and behind a mirror) but since the thread was concerning mathematical calculations I thought my explanation was more relevant.
Quite how that topic got dragged into this thread I’ll never know. It seems that because I did not explain the concept of a parsec entirely satisfactorily (which I accepted my not be the case when I posted my reply) I was not qualified to voice an opinion on men who pretend they are women. You live and learn, as they say.
//...so, in the unlikely event that I ever met NewJudge or Naomi or TTT or whoever, then maybe they wouldn't be so confrontational.//
It is not confrontational to voice a contrary opinion. The issue of gender identity is one of opinion, not fact. And I think the confusion over that is most of the problem.
It was at 20:06 on 4/1/23, with a slightly extended explanation at 22:10 on the same day, in this question:
https:/
It was recalled from memory (of a long time ago) and not from Google. It may not have been precisely scientifically correct but was the best could do. For the record, I believe the question posed was "Unless the definition of a parsec is known or provided, how is anyone meant to calculate the distance in light-years?" so I thought the mathematical definition was more important than to get involved with the principle of parallax. I do understand parallax (I recall an experiment with pins in front of and behind a mirror) but since the thread was concerning mathematical calculations I thought my explanation was more relevant.
Quite how that topic got dragged into this thread I’ll never know. It seems that because I did not explain the concept of a parsec entirely satisfactorily (which I accepted my not be the case when I posted my reply) I was not qualified to voice an opinion on men who pretend they are women. You live and learn, as they say.
//...so, in the unlikely event that I ever met NewJudge or Naomi or TTT or whoever, then maybe they wouldn't be so confrontational.//
It is not confrontational to voice a contrary opinion. The issue of gender identity is one of opinion, not fact. And I think the confusion over that is most of the problem.
// It is not confrontational to voice a contrary opinion. The issue of gender identity is one of opinion, not fact. And I think the confusion over that is most of the problem. //
Well, it's a matter of *fact* that I identify as a trans woman. It's a matter of *opinion* that I'm wrong to do so. Of course you're free to voice that opinion, and in turn I'm free to reject it; any confrontation, if it occurred, would depend on what followed that initial exchange. That said, it is at least unfortunate that you, in effect, describe what I'm doing as "pretending" to be a woman. I'm not pretending to be anything. I'm only being myself. I'm not living a "fantasy". This is my reality.
I think in such matters it's helpful to remember the useful rule of thumb, that it's better to be kind than to be "right". It's also helpful to remember that we don't engage with "immutable biological fact[s]"; we engage with people. On both those grounds... well, I'd encourage you to at least think more carefully about this. Like I said when I started in this thread, the problem is often that transgender people are talked about, but not talked *to*, nor listened to. It's an opportunity that is rare, at least on this site -- I can't speak to whether your personal life involves knowing any trans people -- and it would be a shame for you to waste it.
Well, it's a matter of *fact* that I identify as a trans woman. It's a matter of *opinion* that I'm wrong to do so. Of course you're free to voice that opinion, and in turn I'm free to reject it; any confrontation, if it occurred, would depend on what followed that initial exchange. That said, it is at least unfortunate that you, in effect, describe what I'm doing as "pretending" to be a woman. I'm not pretending to be anything. I'm only being myself. I'm not living a "fantasy". This is my reality.
I think in such matters it's helpful to remember the useful rule of thumb, that it's better to be kind than to be "right". It's also helpful to remember that we don't engage with "immutable biological fact[s]"; we engage with people. On both those grounds... well, I'd encourage you to at least think more carefully about this. Like I said when I started in this thread, the problem is often that transgender people are talked about, but not talked *to*, nor listened to. It's an opportunity that is rare, at least on this site -- I can't speak to whether your personal life involves knowing any trans people -- and it would be a shame for you to waste it.
ClareTGold, I too am being myself and I also disagree that voicing a contrary opinion is confrontational. That's yet another detrimental charge aimed at silencing the opposition. We're in a ludicrous situation and it's one that isn't met honestly by the trans community or its supporters. J K Rowling has received death threats for telling the truth; Sharon Davies has been vilified for telling the truth. - we even have the NHS asking men if they're pregnant and the leader of the opposition, potentially our next Prime Minister, refusing to acknowledge that only men have penises. It's madness. And we are all expected to support this enormous lie and if we don't we're accused of all sorts. What I would like to see is the trans community face reality and say frankly that J K Rowling and Sharon Davies are both right - because I've no doubt whatsoever they know they are. Men do not menstruate, men do not have cervixes and men calling themselves women and competing against real women in the sports arena isn't fair. I think they would attract a lot more respect if they did.
ClareTGold, //All I'll add is that anyone reading my posts (now and in the future) should eventually reach the same conclusion that Pixie has. //
Pixie said // It's obvious enough who clare is- a genuine poster though. //
That indicates to me that Pixie thinks you have more than one username here. Is she right?
Pixie said // It's obvious enough who clare is- a genuine poster though. //
That indicates to me that Pixie thinks you have more than one username here. Is she right?
The other username Pixie's thinking of isn't active, in case you were worried about whether I was breaking any Site Rules.
Not at all. Site Rules played no part in my question.
Latest Posts
Religion & Spirituality4 mins ago
Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News13 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
News16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.