News1 min 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.
Why do you think it a little strange, Zacs? Zebu has searched around for Clare? Zebu has created Clare?
Clare may have been around on AB for a long time without sharing everything about her life.
For all you know I could be transgender. Dave could. We have plenty of people on AB who don't tell us everything about themselves. And plenty who fib. ;-)
You'd have loved a night out with MrsO, Clare. One of the most caring people I've ever met....especially if you're a good quizzer. :-)
Clare may have been around on AB for a long time without sharing everything about her life.
For all you know I could be transgender. Dave could. We have plenty of people on AB who don't tell us everything about themselves. And plenty who fib. ;-)
You'd have loved a night out with MrsO, Clare. One of the most caring people I've ever met....especially if you're a good quizzer. :-)
kuiper: "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." - gawd I thought that went without saying, Parsec is a portmanteau of "Parallax second" - a device used to measure the distances to stars, essentially the base of a right angled triangle with one side of 1 AU and a hypotenuse at an angle 1 arc second from the parallel. The distant point of that triangle is 3.26 light years away, one parsec. It's useful because the apparent variant in position of the star against the back ground 6 months apart gives an easy way to calculate distance, for fairly close stars anyway.
//That said, it is at least unfortunate that you, in effect, describe what I'm doing as "pretending" to be a woman.//
There’s no other way to describe it. Presumably you have male physical attributes so that makes you a man. Your opinion is that you are a woman. Everybody is entitled to their opinion even if it flies in the face of facts.
//It's also helpful to remember that we don't engage with "immutable biological fact[s]"; we engage with people.//
This is not about engaging with people. It’s a discussion around the concept of gender. It is my view that gender is largely meaningless. As you have demonstrated, it’s whatever you want it to be. I wouldn’t seek to take that right away from you (especially as it makes no difference to me or to anybody else - except perhaps your nearest and dearest - what you call yourself). The issue as far as I am concerned arises when you want your opinion accepted as fact. Examples of what happens when that ludicrous philosophy is put forward are perfectly demonstrated in naomi’s post at 08:58 today.
The fact that your feelings do not coincide with your biological sex is, in my view, most unfortunate and is something you must address and deal with. But you should not expect everybody else to agree with the opinion you have of yourself when it is clearly factually incorrect. In particular you should not accuse them of being “confrontational” when they don’t conform to your wishes. From where I’m standing, any confrontation comes from elements among the trans community and their supporters who refuse to accept that we don’t all think the same way. I support your right to believe you are a woman. You should support my right to believe that you are not.
There’s no other way to describe it. Presumably you have male physical attributes so that makes you a man. Your opinion is that you are a woman. Everybody is entitled to their opinion even if it flies in the face of facts.
//It's also helpful to remember that we don't engage with "immutable biological fact[s]"; we engage with people.//
This is not about engaging with people. It’s a discussion around the concept of gender. It is my view that gender is largely meaningless. As you have demonstrated, it’s whatever you want it to be. I wouldn’t seek to take that right away from you (especially as it makes no difference to me or to anybody else - except perhaps your nearest and dearest - what you call yourself). The issue as far as I am concerned arises when you want your opinion accepted as fact. Examples of what happens when that ludicrous philosophy is put forward are perfectly demonstrated in naomi’s post at 08:58 today.
The fact that your feelings do not coincide with your biological sex is, in my view, most unfortunate and is something you must address and deal with. But you should not expect everybody else to agree with the opinion you have of yourself when it is clearly factually incorrect. In particular you should not accuse them of being “confrontational” when they don’t conform to your wishes. From where I’m standing, any confrontation comes from elements among the trans community and their supporters who refuse to accept that we don’t all think the same way. I support your right to believe you are a woman. You should support my right to believe that you are not.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, NJ. But, since we're doing pretending, you don't have a monopoly on what counts as "fact", or on what matters. As you yourself said, it's only "your view" that gender is meaningless, rather than some objective truth that I'm apparently ignorant of.
Also, I don't think it's "most unfortunate" that my sense of self doesn't align with my biological sex. Indeed, if there was anything unfortunate about it, it's only that I took this long to do anything about it -- but it's better not to hold on to such regrets.
By all means hold your view. The trick is knowing when it's appropriate to share it and when not to. When having these discussions in the abstract, I wouldn't wish you to feel unable to express your views the way you wish; when interacting with me, I'd hope that I don't need to keep defending my sense of self.
It's important to note, too, that what is "confrontational" about your posts is not your refusal to accept my sense of self per se, but your continued repetition of that refusal, particularly in terms that are needlessly dismissive. "Pretending", "fantasy", "most unfortunate", "[a] ludicrous philosophy"... this is just needlessly patronising.
Also, I don't think it's "most unfortunate" that my sense of self doesn't align with my biological sex. Indeed, if there was anything unfortunate about it, it's only that I took this long to do anything about it -- but it's better not to hold on to such regrets.
By all means hold your view. The trick is knowing when it's appropriate to share it and when not to. When having these discussions in the abstract, I wouldn't wish you to feel unable to express your views the way you wish; when interacting with me, I'd hope that I don't need to keep defending my sense of self.
It's important to note, too, that what is "confrontational" about your posts is not your refusal to accept my sense of self per se, but your continued repetition of that refusal, particularly in terms that are needlessly dismissive. "Pretending", "fantasy", "most unfortunate", "[a] ludicrous philosophy"... this is just needlessly patronising.
None of the women I know in person seem to mind.
I'm not pretending to be anything. The problem you and NJ both have is that you're too hung up on "sex" as opposed to "gender" -- a division you even acknowledged in the other active thread on this, although you seemed unaware of the implications of this acknowledgement.
Trans women are women in the same sense that adoptive parents are parents. And nobody would dare to dream of calling an adoptive parent "only pretending".
I'm not pretending to be anything. The problem you and NJ both have is that you're too hung up on "sex" as opposed to "gender" -- a division you even acknowledged in the other active thread on this, although you seemed unaware of the implications of this acknowledgement.
Trans women are women in the same sense that adoptive parents are parents. And nobody would dare to dream of calling an adoptive parent "only pretending".
I didn’t acknowledge anything of the sort on the other thread. Having been presented with some conveniently wonky thinking I simply pointed out that we’re told by the trans brigade and their supporters that we shouldn’t confuse the two. Back to your very strange analogy - and it is strange. Not sure how you work that one out - but it comes as no surprise that you would say something like that.
Also, while we're at it, why are some people apparently so invested in trying to inform me that I'm only pretending? In apparently trying to bring enlightenment? It's quasi-religious, the energy some people seek to go to to "convert me" from my "sin" of self-delusion. But those people must surely know, deep down, that there's nothing they can say that I haven't already told myself a million times in the well over half of my life that I've had to think about this part of me. Do they really think that the concept that I'm only "pretending", whatever that even means, is somehow a novel thought that never would have occurred to me had they said it?
Also there's nothing strange about my analogy. In both cases there's the biological, and the social, definition of a word. In the case of parents, we understand that sometimes, indeed most of the time, the two overlap, but not always, and one can be a parent in one sense but not the other. But we also understand that being an adoptive parent is no less "true", no less valid, than being a biological one.
Gender is functionally the same. There are obviously senses in which I'm different from natal women; but that doesn't mean I'm any less valid in my sense of self. And particularly that's true when, as I again find myself repeating, everyone I meet seems happy to accept this. Except a certain number of people on the internet who don't know me personally, and don't have any stake in the matter, except that they seem desperate to ensure that I know that they're "right" and I'm "wrong".
Also there's nothing strange about my analogy. In both cases there's the biological, and the social, definition of a word. In the case of parents, we understand that sometimes, indeed most of the time, the two overlap, but not always, and one can be a parent in one sense but not the other. But we also understand that being an adoptive parent is no less "true", no less valid, than being a biological one.
Gender is functionally the same. There are obviously senses in which I'm different from natal women; but that doesn't mean I'm any less valid in my sense of self. And particularly that's true when, as I again find myself repeating, everyone I meet seems happy to accept this. Except a certain number of people on the internet who don't know me personally, and don't have any stake in the matter, except that they seem desperate to ensure that I know that they're "right" and I'm "wrong".
The parent thing is utter nonsense - but typical. Frankly I couldn’t care less what or who you think you are - but I do care that you fully expect others to accept it too - and bizarrely to respect it - not least in as much as trans people think they have a right to invade women’s single sex facilities - and even to extent that death threats issued for speaking the unsavoury truth and as far as I’m aware not one of you will be honest enough to acknowledge the truth. You just carry on perpetrating the same old lies.
//…you don't have a monopoly on what counts as "fact", or on what matters.//
I don’t claim to have such a monopoly. But a person with male physical attributes is not a woman. That is as factually correct as 1 + 1 = 2. (Yes I know there are some who subscribe to that being not necessarily so – but their theories, which usually involve the manipulation of algebraic conventions - are about as sound as those suggesting a person with a penis is a woman).
//I'd hope that I don't need to keep defending my sense of self.//
You came into this debate and told us all you were a transgender woman. Until then it was an abstract debate, at least inasmuch as it did not involve anybody personally on here. You had no need to move the debate from abstract to personal but you chose to. If you insist you are a woman some may take issue with that and so you may feel the need to defend your “sense of self” (or at least your argument).
For the record, I couldn’t give a toss what transgender people call themselves or what they do. What I do care about is the insistence by transgender women (in particular, though it also applies the other way) that they are women and insisting on all the privileges that are afforded only to women.
I’ve been looking at some of your earlier posts:
//I can certainly see why if someone barged in to a women-only space, asserted that they were a woman, and brooked no dissent or discomfort at all from those around them, then there'd be an issue.//
But that is precisely what many transgender activists are insisting upon: no dissent, no objection, no discomfort, no questions asked. Ms Sturgeon’s ridiculous transgender bill (thankfully blocked by the Westminster government) requires nothing other than a declaration from a man “I am now a woman” and they have unfettered access to women-only spaces. This is a ludicrous state of affairs and indicates to me that the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.
//But your problem there is because such a person is a disrespectful a-hole, not because of their gender identity per se.//
So what d you suggest: a man making a polite request at his local Debenhams to use the women’s changing rooms? That would make it OK? What if some women already there object?
//That's all. It isn't too much to ask. Just be respectful.//
That cuts both ways. But you are already trying to close down robust debate by suggesting it is “confrontational.” It’s nothing of the sort. It is a different point of view and one which will not be closed down because it upsets a few people who don’t subscribe to it.
I don’t claim to have such a monopoly. But a person with male physical attributes is not a woman. That is as factually correct as 1 + 1 = 2. (Yes I know there are some who subscribe to that being not necessarily so – but their theories, which usually involve the manipulation of algebraic conventions - are about as sound as those suggesting a person with a penis is a woman).
//I'd hope that I don't need to keep defending my sense of self.//
You came into this debate and told us all you were a transgender woman. Until then it was an abstract debate, at least inasmuch as it did not involve anybody personally on here. You had no need to move the debate from abstract to personal but you chose to. If you insist you are a woman some may take issue with that and so you may feel the need to defend your “sense of self” (or at least your argument).
For the record, I couldn’t give a toss what transgender people call themselves or what they do. What I do care about is the insistence by transgender women (in particular, though it also applies the other way) that they are women and insisting on all the privileges that are afforded only to women.
I’ve been looking at some of your earlier posts:
//I can certainly see why if someone barged in to a women-only space, asserted that they were a woman, and brooked no dissent or discomfort at all from those around them, then there'd be an issue.//
But that is precisely what many transgender activists are insisting upon: no dissent, no objection, no discomfort, no questions asked. Ms Sturgeon’s ridiculous transgender bill (thankfully blocked by the Westminster government) requires nothing other than a declaration from a man “I am now a woman” and they have unfettered access to women-only spaces. This is a ludicrous state of affairs and indicates to me that the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.
//But your problem there is because such a person is a disrespectful a-hole, not because of their gender identity per se.//
So what d you suggest: a man making a polite request at his local Debenhams to use the women’s changing rooms? That would make it OK? What if some women already there object?
//That's all. It isn't too much to ask. Just be respectful.//
That cuts both ways. But you are already trying to close down robust debate by suggesting it is “confrontational.” It’s nothing of the sort. It is a different point of view and one which will not be closed down because it upsets a few people who don’t subscribe to it.
it has been many many years since i've seen a female changing space in shops that is a communal room. they are all individual cubicles (and in fact many shops don't seperate it into female and male areas, just have the cubicles that men or women can use)
Also, debenhams dont have any shops any more :)
Also, debenhams dont have any shops any more :)
Latest Posts
Religion & Spirituality4 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
ChatterBank15 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.