Pendleside Festive Dingbats C/D 6Th Jan
Quizzes & Puzzles3 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.
//Don't blame me if you're having difficulty adapting to change in these modern times.//
I don’t think there are too many people who have difficulty adapting to change. However, this nonsense is developing into one of the great scandals of our times. It is scandalous that men are being allowed to enter, and sometimes are even placed by State authorities, into women only spaces. These are places (including even in prison) where women are entitled to some privacy from the opposite sex. Of course the same protection should be afforded to men, but predominantly the problem seems to be with men masquerading as women.
This has now reached the stage where it really must be asked whether the lunatics are running the asylum. I have no objection to men masquerading as women. They can dress as women, act as women, even call themselves a woman. But that’s as far as it goes. I’ve no intention of addressing them or referring to them by their “preferred pronouns.” I will not take part in such a charade.
The respect that they beg is unwarranted. It’s most unfortunate that they don’t feel “right” in the gender they were assigned at birth. Life’s tough sometimes but you just have to get on with it. But since gender is now a somewhat meaningless term there’s no reason why other people should indulge in their fantasies.
It is very interesting that the question of rape perpetrated by someone who later claims to be a woman has reared its head again. A year or so ago, the House of Lords was told that an investigation by the police into another allegation of rape was seriously hampered by NHS hospital staff telling them that no males were present on a ward at the relevant time. In fact there was a male – one who had “identified” as a woman and had been placed on a women’s ward. He was eventually convicted of rape but not before the victim had been on the verge of a mental breakdown because she was not believed. The investigation would not have been hampered if NHS staff were not told by their managers to tell lies. But this is what has resulted from this ridiculous ideology:
https:/
(Reports on the same incident are available from other sources)
//Inspite of all prejudice, why would you tar with the same brush all those men who are trying very hard to lead a normal life, but happen now to identify as women?//
Because a man identifying as a woman is not leading a normal life and, as unfortunate as it may seem, they can expect to encounter some considerable difficulties along the way.
//Try walking a mile in another person's shoes.//
Indeed. The shoes that should be worn are those of normal women who face having to share their women-only spaces with men pretending to be women. I doubt it would make much difference because the men shouting for their rights to invade women’s spaces are more concerned with their warped ideology than they are for the rights of women.
People are not opposed to this because it is “new” or “modern.” They are opposed to it because, as already seen, it will lead to a multitude of problems for women and children. This is all about maintaining reasonable boundaries which have worked well for centuries. This is more than protecting women against crimes committed against them by men (which is vastly important on its own account). But even if the men involved do not indulge in criminal activity, women do not want men amongst them in certain situations. And the idea that the men are no longer men because they have self-declared otherwise does not alter that.
I don’t think there are too many people who have difficulty adapting to change. However, this nonsense is developing into one of the great scandals of our times. It is scandalous that men are being allowed to enter, and sometimes are even placed by State authorities, into women only spaces. These are places (including even in prison) where women are entitled to some privacy from the opposite sex. Of course the same protection should be afforded to men, but predominantly the problem seems to be with men masquerading as women.
This has now reached the stage where it really must be asked whether the lunatics are running the asylum. I have no objection to men masquerading as women. They can dress as women, act as women, even call themselves a woman. But that’s as far as it goes. I’ve no intention of addressing them or referring to them by their “preferred pronouns.” I will not take part in such a charade.
The respect that they beg is unwarranted. It’s most unfortunate that they don’t feel “right” in the gender they were assigned at birth. Life’s tough sometimes but you just have to get on with it. But since gender is now a somewhat meaningless term there’s no reason why other people should indulge in their fantasies.
It is very interesting that the question of rape perpetrated by someone who later claims to be a woman has reared its head again. A year or so ago, the House of Lords was told that an investigation by the police into another allegation of rape was seriously hampered by NHS hospital staff telling them that no males were present on a ward at the relevant time. In fact there was a male – one who had “identified” as a woman and had been placed on a women’s ward. He was eventually convicted of rape but not before the victim had been on the verge of a mental breakdown because she was not believed. The investigation would not have been hampered if NHS staff were not told by their managers to tell lies. But this is what has resulted from this ridiculous ideology:
https:/
(Reports on the same incident are available from other sources)
//Inspite of all prejudice, why would you tar with the same brush all those men who are trying very hard to lead a normal life, but happen now to identify as women?//
Because a man identifying as a woman is not leading a normal life and, as unfortunate as it may seem, they can expect to encounter some considerable difficulties along the way.
//Try walking a mile in another person's shoes.//
Indeed. The shoes that should be worn are those of normal women who face having to share their women-only spaces with men pretending to be women. I doubt it would make much difference because the men shouting for their rights to invade women’s spaces are more concerned with their warped ideology than they are for the rights of women.
People are not opposed to this because it is “new” or “modern.” They are opposed to it because, as already seen, it will lead to a multitude of problems for women and children. This is all about maintaining reasonable boundaries which have worked well for centuries. This is more than protecting women against crimes committed against them by men (which is vastly important on its own account). But even if the men involved do not indulge in criminal activity, women do not want men amongst them in certain situations. And the idea that the men are no longer men because they have self-declared otherwise does not alter that.
Well said judge.
"A year or so ago, the House of Lords was told that an investigation by the police into another allegation of rape was seriously hampered by NHS hospital staff telling them that no males were present on a ward at the relevant time. In fact there was a male – one who had “identified” as a woman and had been placed on a women’s ward. He was eventually convicted of rape but not before the victim had been on the verge of a mental breakdown. " - and those NHS staff and their managers should, in my opinion have been charged with perverting the course of justice.
"A year or so ago, the House of Lords was told that an investigation by the police into another allegation of rape was seriously hampered by NHS hospital staff telling them that no males were present on a ward at the relevant time. In fact there was a male – one who had “identified” as a woman and had been placed on a women’s ward. He was eventually convicted of rape but not before the victim had been on the verge of a mental breakdown. " - and those NHS staff and their managers should, in my opinion have been charged with perverting the course of justice.
people do and should have the right to change their gender (which is different from biological sex) and unfortunately that right extends to terrible human beings as well as everyone else....
most (in fact i think all?) transgender prisoners are submitted to a committee for deciding special cases to determine where they will be incarcerated... as this person is guilty of sex crimes it would be extremely negligent to put them in a woman's prison... one would think the best thing to do would be solitary confinement in a male prison as the chances of being raped by staff or by other inmates is extremely high
most (in fact i think all?) transgender prisoners are submitted to a committee for deciding special cases to determine where they will be incarcerated... as this person is guilty of sex crimes it would be extremely negligent to put them in a woman's prison... one would think the best thing to do would be solitary confinement in a male prison as the chances of being raped by staff or by other inmates is extremely high
i cannot actually find any proof that that incident in the hospital actually happened apart from baroness nicholson (a person who is extremely hostile to gay and trans people) saying it happened... no statement from any police force or any hospital or anyone representing the victim... no record anywhere of a person being arrested despite apparently being caught on camera... no prosecutions against nhs staff for obstructing a police investigation... i am not totally convinced that it actually happened
The DM making things up.....surely not!
https:/
https:/
// " - and those NHS staff and their managers should, in my opinion have been charged with perverting the course of justice.//
Indeed Tora. But this is where this ridiculous nonsense has led us. We have now reached the point where staff of the nation's largest employer are being told to lie to the police in pursuit of this ludicrous ideology
.In any other situation, a person wilfully and falsely declaring that there were no men around when police were investigating a rape allegation would be charged, at he least, with obstructing the police. Hopefully, when such a blatant lie was uttered, with something more serious such as assisting an offender or, as you suggest, PCoJ.
In that particular case a man who had committed a very serious sexual offence had been protected from investigation by lies. The truth, in common with the creature in this OP, is that he is a man and will remain a man despite his assertions to the contrary. Women are entitled to privacy from men and not to have them foisted upon them in situations where they are entitled to feel safe.
Indeed Tora. But this is where this ridiculous nonsense has led us. We have now reached the point where staff of the nation's largest employer are being told to lie to the police in pursuit of this ludicrous ideology
.In any other situation, a person wilfully and falsely declaring that there were no men around when police were investigating a rape allegation would be charged, at he least, with obstructing the police. Hopefully, when such a blatant lie was uttered, with something more serious such as assisting an offender or, as you suggest, PCoJ.
In that particular case a man who had committed a very serious sexual offence had been protected from investigation by lies. The truth, in common with the creature in this OP, is that he is a man and will remain a man despite his assertions to the contrary. Women are entitled to privacy from men and not to have them foisted upon them in situations where they are entitled to feel safe.
//…people do and should have the right to change their gender//
Indeed they do. With the term “gender” having been rendered largely meaningless, principally as a result of this nonsense, the process does not make a man into a woman. What is happening here is that the rights of half the population are being sacrificed in order to bestow rights on about 0.2% of the population to behave as they wish. Men can call themselves what they like. But when people and large authorities begin to indulge them in their fantasies and it begins to impinge on the rights and safety of all women, it is time for another approach.
//…as this person is guilty of sex crimes it would be extremely negligent to put them in a woman's prison...//
Why would it? Are you saying he only has the rights of a transgender person provided he behaves himself? Rights don’t work like that. You either have them or you don’t. Even the most vile of criminals have the right to be treated humanely when they are incarcerated. How long do you think a decision to put him in a men’s prison would last? It would fall at the first hurdle. Rights of this type are not conditional on good behaviour. Once you have them, you have them. My argument is that they should not have been bestowed in the first place (on anybody, not especially sexual offenders).
//How do you know the Nurses / ward staff were told to lie?//
//i am not totally convinced that it actually happened//
Always difficult to prove a negative but I think if it had not happened Lady Nicholson would have been more strongly challenged at the time. However, lets, forget the specific case and instead examine “Annex B”:
Parliament has decreed that all patients have the right to be treated in a single sex ward. However, Annex B is an NHS policy allowing patients to be sent to single-sex wards that align with their gender preference. Page 12 of this document:
https:/
It goes to great lengths to describe that the Equality Act provides that individuals who have proposed, begun or completed reassignment of gender enjoy legal protection against discrimination. It says this:
• Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use.
• This may not always accord with the physical sex appearance of the chest or genitalia.
But most importantly:
• It does not depend on their having a gender recognition certificate (GRC) or legal name change
Either by accident or design (I know which I prefer) Annex B neglects to add that to enjoy protection (under the Equalities Act) an individual must have a GRC confirming their new gender. This is what Parliament has said. But the NHS seems to have skipped over that minor inconvenience and instead allows a man who simply says he is a she to be accommodated on a women’s ward. The NHS is deliberately undermining the wishes of Parliament because a man who self-identifies as a woman is still a man. It is my view that he remains a man after having received his GRC, but that's another argument.
The upshot of this is the vast majority of women in a women’s hospital ward will have to put up with having a man amongst them which I would imagine, would be specifically contrary to the wishes of most of them. By contrast, the man has his wish to be placed in a ward full of women duly respected. What justification is there for the majority - especially when most of them in a situation over which they have little control - to have their sensibilities trashed for such a small minority?
Indeed they do. With the term “gender” having been rendered largely meaningless, principally as a result of this nonsense, the process does not make a man into a woman. What is happening here is that the rights of half the population are being sacrificed in order to bestow rights on about 0.2% of the population to behave as they wish. Men can call themselves what they like. But when people and large authorities begin to indulge them in their fantasies and it begins to impinge on the rights and safety of all women, it is time for another approach.
//…as this person is guilty of sex crimes it would be extremely negligent to put them in a woman's prison...//
Why would it? Are you saying he only has the rights of a transgender person provided he behaves himself? Rights don’t work like that. You either have them or you don’t. Even the most vile of criminals have the right to be treated humanely when they are incarcerated. How long do you think a decision to put him in a men’s prison would last? It would fall at the first hurdle. Rights of this type are not conditional on good behaviour. Once you have them, you have them. My argument is that they should not have been bestowed in the first place (on anybody, not especially sexual offenders).
//How do you know the Nurses / ward staff were told to lie?//
//i am not totally convinced that it actually happened//
Always difficult to prove a negative but I think if it had not happened Lady Nicholson would have been more strongly challenged at the time. However, lets, forget the specific case and instead examine “Annex B”:
Parliament has decreed that all patients have the right to be treated in a single sex ward. However, Annex B is an NHS policy allowing patients to be sent to single-sex wards that align with their gender preference. Page 12 of this document:
https:/
It goes to great lengths to describe that the Equality Act provides that individuals who have proposed, begun or completed reassignment of gender enjoy legal protection against discrimination. It says this:
• Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use.
• This may not always accord with the physical sex appearance of the chest or genitalia.
But most importantly:
• It does not depend on their having a gender recognition certificate (GRC) or legal name change
Either by accident or design (I know which I prefer) Annex B neglects to add that to enjoy protection (under the Equalities Act) an individual must have a GRC confirming their new gender. This is what Parliament has said. But the NHS seems to have skipped over that minor inconvenience and instead allows a man who simply says he is a she to be accommodated on a women’s ward. The NHS is deliberately undermining the wishes of Parliament because a man who self-identifies as a woman is still a man. It is my view that he remains a man after having received his GRC, but that's another argument.
The upshot of this is the vast majority of women in a women’s hospital ward will have to put up with having a man amongst them which I would imagine, would be specifically contrary to the wishes of most of them. By contrast, the man has his wish to be placed in a ward full of women duly respected. What justification is there for the majority - especially when most of them in a situation over which they have little control - to have their sensibilities trashed for such a small minority?
"Why would it? Are you saying he only has the rights of a transgender person provided he behaves himself? Rights don’t work like that. You either have them or you don’t."
transgender people do not have a right to be in a particular kind of prison... some are housed in prisons according to their target gender and some are not... the decision is usually made by a body which i think is called a special cases panel but i have not checked the exact name
i cannot see why such a panel would place a prisoner guilty of raping women in a women's institution when they could do otherwise... it would be negligent to do so.
transgender people do not have a right to be in a particular kind of prison... some are housed in prisons according to their target gender and some are not... the decision is usually made by a body which i think is called a special cases panel but i have not checked the exact name
i cannot see why such a panel would place a prisoner guilty of raping women in a women's institution when they could do otherwise... it would be negligent to do so.
"to enjoy protection (under the Equalities Act) an individual must have a GRC confirming their new gender."
the equalities act does not specify possession of a GRC in its listing of protected characteristics...
https:/
a trans person does not need a GRC to be protected by it..
the equality act also allows for transgender people to be excluded from single sex spaces with or without a GRC if it is "proportionate" to do so and achieves a legitimate aim:
https:/
a GRC is purely for amending your birth certificate and for death and marriage documentation....
the equalities act does not specify possession of a GRC in its listing of protected characteristics...
https:/
a trans person does not need a GRC to be protected by it..
the equality act also allows for transgender people to be excluded from single sex spaces with or without a GRC if it is "proportionate" to do so and achieves a legitimate aim:
https:/
a GRC is purely for amending your birth certificate and for death and marriage documentation....
https:/
"Effect
739.This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services. Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified."
"Effect
739.This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services. Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified."
I do take a perverse type of enjoyment when the oh so achingly right on manage to tie themselves up in knots to justify their right-on-ness.
I’m looking at you untitled.
There is not a single justifiable reason to afford this piece of filth any respect or courtesy by using female pronouns for it. He’s got a dick for Christ’s sake, a dick he used to penetrate women (proper women) against their will.
I’m looking at you untitled.
There is not a single justifiable reason to afford this piece of filth any respect or courtesy by using female pronouns for it. He’s got a dick for Christ’s sake, a dick he used to penetrate women (proper women) against their will.
The investigation would not have been hampered if NHS staff were not told by their managers to tell lies.
are you sure about this? Both nurses and doctors have the GMC/NMC around their necks lying in wait for things like lying...
NHS admin ( still staff) dont know their arriss from their elbow and er dont count.
are you sure about this? Both nurses and doctors have the GMC/NMC around their necks lying in wait for things like lying...
NHS admin ( still staff) dont know their arriss from their elbow and er dont count.
.In any other situation, a person wilfully and falsely declaring that there were no men around when police were investigating a rape allegation would be charged, at he least, with obstructing the police.
an alternative interpretation is that any declaration was wrong and a mistake and not wilful - hence no charge.
we used to have mixed wards a few years ago you know
an alternative interpretation is that any declaration was wrong and a mistake and not wilful - hence no charge.
we used to have mixed wards a few years ago you know
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.