News15 mins ago
Petard Anyone?
19 Answers
https:/
Somebody's going to be re-purposed in coming days for allowing the FM to go off half errrr cocked.
Somebody's going to be re-purposed in coming days for allowing the FM to go off half errrr cocked.
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by douglas9401. 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.
"When a man rapes two women, we don't think that he should be considered a woman just because he says so.” So said Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross.
Strangely, in an earlier lengthy thread on this subject I said something similar, although I did not restrict my assertion to men who commit rape. I applied it to all men. The Scottish Justice minister was on record as saying "If somebody presents as a trans person then we accept that on face value." So why not this creature? It’s either accepted at face value (for all men who pretend to be women) or it’s not. After all, a man stating he is a woman is simply expressing an opinion, not a fact; the fact is that he is a man.
It strikes me that what the FM (and her Justice Minister) is saying is that we accept these claims at face value unconditionally – except, err…when it doesn’t suit us. So why shouldn’t everybody else (for example, women who don’t welcome the idea of men claiming to be women being present in women only spaces) say the same without castigation?
Strangely, in an earlier lengthy thread on this subject I said something similar, although I did not restrict my assertion to men who commit rape. I applied it to all men. The Scottish Justice minister was on record as saying "If somebody presents as a trans person then we accept that on face value." So why not this creature? It’s either accepted at face value (for all men who pretend to be women) or it’s not. After all, a man stating he is a woman is simply expressing an opinion, not a fact; the fact is that he is a man.
It strikes me that what the FM (and her Justice Minister) is saying is that we accept these claims at face value unconditionally – except, err…when it doesn’t suit us. So why shouldn’t everybody else (for example, women who don’t welcome the idea of men claiming to be women being present in women only spaces) say the same without castigation?
Well said JNO, I don't believe this person is typical of those who are genuinely born with a mind/ body mismatch. This person is a criminal, and should be punished appropriately.
It is why although I believe people should have the right to become the gender that they believe they should be, that final decision that makes the reassignment permanent should require certification from professional psychologists rather than solely self identification.( Ideally following reassignment surgery although this may not be possible due to other medical conditions)
It is why although I believe people should have the right to become the gender that they believe they should be, that final decision that makes the reassignment permanent should require certification from professional psychologists rather than solely self identification.( Ideally following reassignment surgery although this may not be possible due to other medical conditions)
/// 15 years back you could still see the same disgust in some posts about gays///
It was over 25 years ago that I first personally encountered this issue - a guy in the department where I worked had the transfer to female operation etc., and Management went out of their way to ensure we all treated her properly when she returned to work. Nobody was disgusted and all his old friends were equally friendly with her. She continued as a law-abiding citizen so the jail issue never arose.
I don't know why Nicola is so worked up, is Scotland really 25 years behind England with attitudes etc.?
It was over 25 years ago that I first personally encountered this issue - a guy in the department where I worked had the transfer to female operation etc., and Management went out of their way to ensure we all treated her properly when she returned to work. Nobody was disgusted and all his old friends were equally friendly with her. She continued as a law-abiding citizen so the jail issue never arose.
I don't know why Nicola is so worked up, is Scotland really 25 years behind England with attitudes etc.?
jno; Well, we've only got so much acceptable despisement (real word?) so if we run out of one target we have to find another. We hated the Vikings, then the Normans, then the French, then the Jews, then the witches, then the Jews, then the Catholics, then the Protestants, then the Spaniards, then the Dutch, then the Hun, then the Boches, Commies, 5C, Lefties and so on ad infinitum. Some ABers seem to love hating the Scots at the moment. Life is so amusing at my age - seeing the kids squabbling about ridiculous invented issues. Oh well, the youngsters seem to need someone to hate - I think it's silly but who am I to preach?
//You failed to include this which followed that sentence,//
The second para doesn’t nullify the first, Corby. Either its accepted (at face value) that all men who pretend to be women are women, or it’s not. The Justice Minister said it is. And if it is, those men are entitled to be housed in a women’s prison because they are, apparently, women. Transgender rights cannot only be applicable if it suits everybody; they’re either rights or they’re not. If all a man has to do to be treated as a woman is to say he’s a woman then that’s that. Of course that notion is remarkably stupid, as this episode demonstrates.
//I think the trans and anti trans squabble has not much to do with rational argument,…//
So it’s perfectly rational, then, to accept “at face value” that a man is a woman just because he says so? So it must be irrational to suggest otherwise. I must have fallen through Alice’s looking glass.
//15 years back you could still see the same disgust in some posts about gays//
This is a totally different situation. Gay men did not threaten the rights of women to expect women only spaces to be respected. In fact they didn’t threaten anybody else’s rights at all.
//…a guy in the department where I worked had the transfer to female operation etc.,//
So a little more than simply declaring he was a woman, then?
//…we've only got so much acceptable despisement (real word?) so if we run out of one target we have to find another.//
For the record, I don’t despise anybody. I’m simply questioning the sanity of accepting “at face value” that a man who unilaterally declares he is a woman, is, de facto, a woman.
The second para doesn’t nullify the first, Corby. Either its accepted (at face value) that all men who pretend to be women are women, or it’s not. The Justice Minister said it is. And if it is, those men are entitled to be housed in a women’s prison because they are, apparently, women. Transgender rights cannot only be applicable if it suits everybody; they’re either rights or they’re not. If all a man has to do to be treated as a woman is to say he’s a woman then that’s that. Of course that notion is remarkably stupid, as this episode demonstrates.
//I think the trans and anti trans squabble has not much to do with rational argument,…//
So it’s perfectly rational, then, to accept “at face value” that a man is a woman just because he says so? So it must be irrational to suggest otherwise. I must have fallen through Alice’s looking glass.
//15 years back you could still see the same disgust in some posts about gays//
This is a totally different situation. Gay men did not threaten the rights of women to expect women only spaces to be respected. In fact they didn’t threaten anybody else’s rights at all.
//…a guy in the department where I worked had the transfer to female operation etc.,//
So a little more than simply declaring he was a woman, then?
//…we've only got so much acceptable despisement (real word?) so if we run out of one target we have to find another.//
For the record, I don’t despise anybody. I’m simply questioning the sanity of accepting “at face value” that a man who unilaterally declares he is a woman, is, de facto, a woman.
//NJ, the risk assessment would determine whether they went to a women's prison or no.//
Why would a risk assessment be necessary to decide whether or not to send a woman to a women's prison? It has been accepted at face value that the person convicted is a woman. No questions asked. Do they undertake a r/a with all women? Do they consider sending "cisgender" women to a men's prison? If not, why are transgender women treated differently?
Why would a risk assessment be necessary to decide whether or not to send a woman to a women's prison? It has been accepted at face value that the person convicted is a woman. No questions asked. Do they undertake a r/a with all women? Do they consider sending "cisgender" women to a men's prison? If not, why are transgender women treated differently?
The gay issue was a totally different matter. No one was being asked to blatantly lie to please some individual's sensitivities then. All that was required there was acceptance of reality, the precise opposite of what is being pushed in the trans issue.
It's all very sad some seem to have minds that refute the obvious fact of their sex, but that is their burden to live with, with honesty and respect for others. It is not for all others in society to pander to their delusion.
It's all very sad some seem to have minds that refute the obvious fact of their sex, but that is their burden to live with, with honesty and respect for others. It is not for all others in society to pander to their delusion.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
ChatterBank43 mins ago
ChatterBank51 mins ago