Peak Trans

One eyed Jack

P_1 wrote: »

Jesus H Christ, would you do yourself a bloody favour and read over my posts. Find me anywhere where I mentioned the abuse of children.

I think the point being made is that you didn't mention anywhere about the abuse of children, which is exactly what was done at the time when children were separated from their parents and subjected to experimental treatments, and these people were supported and funded by the State.

And yes if we must replace catholic Ireland with a left leaning religion where people are free to be themselves while doing absolutely no harm to others bar making them think outside of the restrictive black and white binary then yes what is the bloody harm. Ask all the questions you want to, there's no such thing as a stupid one, just a stupid answer.

It's not nearly as benign as you make out though. You're thinking inside your own black and white binary world when you can only perceive people being themselves and causing no harm to others, when the fact is that there are people campaigning for harm to be done to children so that they as adults can feel better about themselves. That's where the harm is, and to ignore that or pretend there is no harm is what causes people to question the ideology even more, because they see that harm is being done, and wonder why are a small minority of people playing down the harm being done or attempting to put people off asking questions by claiming they are transphobic.

Instead of reaching for the transphobic label when you don't like the ideology being questioned, it would be more in your interests to acknowledge that the vast majority of adults who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria do not opt for medical transition, and their discomfort is instead alleviated by acceptance. There are people diagnosed with gender dysphoria who choose not to even socially transition as it's not their dysphoria causes them mental distress, but the lack of acceptance from their families, their peer groups, their work colleagues, and even some people within the transgender community who refer to them pejoratively as 'transtrenders' - those who have chosen not to undergo either medical transition or gender confirmation surgery.

It's actually people who have chosen to medically transition or go as far as having gender confirmation surgery are in a minority who want the power to dictate to the majority how they should be able to raise their children, or else risk having their children removed from their care. That too, is just as much a restrictive black and white binary as the one you are rallying against. The difference isn't motivated by transphobia, it's motivated by a difference of perspective.

Using terms like 'cis' to refer to people who are not transgender, and it's a term that is generally used in the pejorative sense, is attempting to shift the paradigm of gender congruity to one where 'cis' is perceived as something undesirable. It's a political and linguistic manoeuver which doesn't really work if it's proponents reject a label they find undesirable, while at the same time suggesting that their attempt to label people is merely a benign classification of their opposite. It's transparent that their motivation is anything but benign.

In regards to redefining people, sometimes adjectives are bloody useful, particularly when someone asks a question and it's a tricky one. Nobody is defining anybody, you define yourself and fcuk anyone who tries to paint you into a corner.

Except that's not really true, is it?

The reason why objections on either side exist is because people do define people in ways in which they find useful, and with regard to children, attempts to define children as transgender before they've even reached puberty is something which people are going to find objectionable. It's an attempt to paint children into a corner by pathologising observed behaviour and attitudes towards themselves and towards others. Children define themselves according to behaviours and attitudes they observe in others. Adults define children's behaviours and attitudes according to themselves. I have no issue with telling other adults who try to define my child according to their standards, that I would appreciate if they didn't do that. If they attempt to continue to do it, I'm still not going to be rude about it, but I would suggest that they keep their projections of their issues onto my child, to themselves. That may have them perceive me as transphobic, but from my perspective, their behaviour and their attitude towards others is that of an asshole. In terms of how my child is raised, my perspective carries a hell of a lot more weight to me than their perspective.

Look I get that this can be a confusing issue for people and people often react with fear and anger towards what they don't understand. What is inexcusable however, is the blatant transphobia that has been evident in this thread since the OP. Yes some people are agitating for people as young as preteen to be prescribed puberty blockers, I'm not one of them. Similarly during the troubles some people were agitating for all sorts to be done to the British, was that all of Ireland?

It's very easy to categorise a difference of opinion as an expression of fear and anger of something that people don't understand, or blatant transphobia or whatever else. But differences of opinion are based on different standards, and simply labelling a difference of opinion as the person being afraid of or angered or misunderstanding or blatant transphobia really doesn't contribute anything towards further understanding. I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it.

Similarly, as you suggested earlier - Irish people generally have a sense of what's the right thing to do, and the more extreme elements in any movement do not represent the majority. Why then would you assume that the majority of people who disagree with your opinion don't understand or are afraid, angry or transphobic? It's a bit of a leap, which you yourself point out is rather fallacious logic.

Should 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to make the decision to be who they are? In my opinion they should be once it has been established that they are of sound mind and that after receiving the appropriate council, they walk into it fully armed with the facts and with eyes wide open.

That's not really the question that people are asking though, is it? What people are questioning is other people's authority to define what those children should become, according to their perception. Children of that age cannot possibly be fully armed with the facts or their eyes wide open when they are not fully developed adults themselves for one thing, and secondly when nobody, even the world's foremost experts in science, medicine, law, sociology, psychology, psychiatry endocrinology and so on, can offer them any guarantees of outcomes whatsoever. At least as adults themselves, then they are in a far better position to understand their condition and their options and the potential outcomes for themselves as adults that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

P_1

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think the point being made is that you didn't mention anywhere about the abuse of children, which is exactly what was done at the time when children were separated from their parents and subjected to experimental treatments, and these people were supported and funded by the State.


Some very fair points raised that I'm far too inebriated to properly answer atm. Thanks for raising them and I'll get back to you later if this thread is still alive


It's not nearly as benign as you make out though. You're thinking inside your own black and white binary world when you can only perceive people being themselves and causing no harm to others, when the fact is that there are people campaigning for harm to be done to children so that they as adults can feel better about themselves. That's where the harm is, and to ignore that or pretend there is no harm is what causes people to question the ideology even more, because they see that harm is being done, and wonder why are a small minority of people playing down the harm being done or attempting to put people off asking questions by claiming they are transphobic.

Instead of reaching for the transphobic label when you don't like the ideology being questioned, it would be more in your interests to acknowledge that the vast majority of adults who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria do not opt for medical transition, and their discomfort is instead alleviated by acceptance. There are people diagnosed with gender dysphoria who choose not to even socially transition as it's not their dysphoria causes them mental distress, but the lack of acceptance from their families, their peer groups, their work colleagues, and even some people within the transgender community who refer to them pejoratively as 'transtrenders' - those who have chosen not to undergo either medical transition or gender confirmation surgery.

It's actually people who have chosen to medically transition or go as far as having gender confirmation surgery are in a minority who want the power to dictate to the majority how they should be able to raise their children, or else risk having their children removed from their care. That too, is just as much a restrictive black and white binary as the one you are rallying against. The difference isn't motivated by transphobia, it's motivated by a difference of perspective.

Using terms like 'cis' to refer to people who are not transgender, and it's a term that is generally used in the pejorative sense, is attempting to shift the paradigm of gender congruity to one where 'cis' is perceived as something undesirable. It's a political and linguistic manoeuver which doesn't really work if it's proponents reject a label they find undesirable, while at the same time suggesting that their attempt to label people is merely a benign classification of their opposite. It's transparent that their motivation is anything but benign.





Except that's not really true, is it?

The reason why objections on either side exist is because people do define people in ways in which they find useful, and with regard to children, attempts to define children as transgender before they've even reached puberty is something which people are going to find objectionable. It's an attempt to paint children into a corner by pathologising observed behaviour and attitudes towards themselves and towards others. Children define themselves according to behaviours and attitudes they observe in others. Adults define children's behaviours and attitudes according to themselves. I have no issue with telling other adults who try to define my child according to their standards, that I would appreciate if they didn't do that. If they attempt to continue to do it, I'm still not going to be rude about it, but I would suggest that they keep their projections of their issues onto my child, to themselves. That may have them perceive me as transphobic, but from my perspective, their behaviour and their attitude towards others is that of an asshole. In terms of how my child is raised, my perspective carries a hell of a lot more weight to me than their perspective.





It's very easy to categorise a difference of opinion as an expression of fear and anger of something that people don't understand, or blatant transphobia or whatever else. But differences of opinion are based on different standards, and simply labelling a difference of opinion as the person being afraid of or angered or misunderstanding or blatant transphobia really doesn't contribute anything towards further understanding. I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it.

Similarly, as you suggested earlier - Irish people generally have a sense of what's the right thing to do, and the more extreme elements in any movement do not represent the majority. Why then would you assume that the majority of people who disagree with your opinion don't understand or are afraid, angry or transphobic? It's a bit of a leap, which you yourself point out is rather fallacious logic.





That's not really the question that people are asking though, is it? What people are questioning is other people's authority to define what those children should become, according to their perception. Children of that age cannot possibly be fully armed with the facts or their eyes wide open when they are not fully developed adults themselves for one thing, and secondly when nobody, even the world's foremost experts in science, medicine, law, sociology, psychology, psychiatry endocrinology and so on, can offer them any guarantees of outcomes whatsoever. At least as adults themselves, then they are in a far better position to understand their condition and their options and the potential outcomes for themselves as adults that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Some very fair points raised that I'm far too inebriated to properly answer atm. Thanks for raising them and I'll get back to you later if this thread is still alive

hatrickpatrick

will56 wrote: »

See this is why I question the current gender fluid movement along with parents forcing/allowing young children to make life changing decisions !

People seem to be so quick to attach a label nowadays

A girl that wants to play with boys toys and dress like a boy is not gender fluid/non binary etc, they just have an interest in those things.
Same for boys looking to play with girl toys etc.

This, exactly. As far as I'm concerned, gender described purely physical and physiological aspects of a person, IE biological sex. The whole concept of gender "identity" - as distinct from physically feeling that you have the wrong body, I'm talking about all the "genderqueer / genderfluid" crap - only comes about because society still expects people to conform to gender stereotypes. And I find it utterly bizarre that the SJWs who are supposedly opposed to gender roles are inadvertently affirming them by insisting that someone who likes things they're not "supposed" to isn't just an individual who doesn't conform to moronic stereotypes - oh no, they're actually a whole complex new category of human altogether and need to be labelled as such.

For a movement which claims to be about breaking down barriers, they seem to love creating new ones where none existed before. Newsflash - there's no need to create labels and pseudoscientific names for every single possible difference in human personality - we already have those. They're called our names! I'm a straight guy who's into some sexual things which would be stereotypically seen as "female gender roles", but that doesn't make me an additional letter on the ever expanding "LGBTOMGWTFBBQ" acronym - it makes me Hatrickpatrick. Because I'm an individual with an individual personality.

I don't understand how the irony of all this is so lost on the gender newthink crusaders. What they're describing is fundamentally the basic fact that no two people are the same, and we don't actually need a new label for every subtle variation - we already have first and last names which define who we are as people. No further labelling necessary.

Graces7

They used to castrate young boys to stop their voices breaking... manipulating children takes many forms.

The Bishop Basher

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I find it utterly bizarre that the SJWs who are supposedly opposed to gender roles are inadvertently affirming them by insisting that someone who likes things they're not "supposed" to isn't just an individual who doesn't conform to moronic stereotypes - oh no, they're actually a whole complex new category of human altogether and need to be labelled as such.

Their movement is littered with inconsistencies and contradictions which is why they get slaughtered in every debate i've witnessed because they can't form any kind of intellectual argument that makes any kind of logical sense..

In my experience they're invariably immature, irrational, illogical, lacking in self awareness, unable to see another view point, unable to debate calmly, throw their toys out of the pram and resort to personal insults and name calling and storm off when they can't answer a simple question. You can write the script..

You can spot them immediately through the language they use, words like "cis" "phobic" attached to one of their bull**** genders. I rarely engage with them as it's always a futile exercise. When they hear something they don't want to hear they become aggressive and usually start mud slinging, personal insults and throw a childish tantrum before storming off.

I have 2 girls, 15 and 20, whom I couldn't be more proud off as they both see this bollix for what it is and have become masters at squishing it when they come across it..

If every sane, rational thinking person did the following every day for a about 6 months, i honestly believe we'd solve the problem..

1) Find 1 illiberal every day, preferably a feminist, and offend them.
2) Remind them that it's their choice to be offended and you don't care.
3) Offend them again.

Rinse and repeat..

We really need these people to understand how little we care about their constant choice to be offended. It can never be our problem that .3% of the population gets so pissed off because the world isn't centered around them. That's life. It's tough. Get over it.

If you want people to accommodate you, especially when you represent such a tiny section of the population, then you need to work with them, not against them, because against them, you'll never win.

PlaneSpeeking

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This, exactly. As far as I'm concerned, gender described purely physical and physiological aspects of a person, IE biological sex. The whole concept of gender "identity" - as distinct from physically feeling that you have the wrong body, I'm talking about all the "genderqueer / genderfluid" crap - only comes about because society still expects people to conform to gender stereotypes. And I find it utterly bizarre that the SJWs who are supposedly opposed to gender roles are inadvertently affirming them by insisting that someone who likes things they're not "supposed" to isn't just an individual who doesn't conform to moronic stereotypes - oh no, they're actually a whole complex new category of human altogether and need to be labelled as such.

For a movement which claims to be about breaking down barriers, they seem to love creating new ones where none existed before. Newsflash - there's no need to create labels and pseudoscientific names for every single possible difference in human personality - we already have those. They're called our names! I'm a straight guy who's into some sexual things which would be stereotypically seen as "female gender roles", but that doesn't make me an additional letter on the ever expanding "LGBTOMGWTFBBQ" acronym - it makes me Hatrickpatrick. Because I'm an individual with an individual personality.

I don't understand how the irony of all this is so lost on the gender newthink crusaders. What they're describing is fundamentally the basic fact that no two people are the same, and we don't actually need a new label for every subtle variation - we already have first and last names which define who we are as people. No further labelling necessary.

+ 1,000

I'm actually bored s**tless with being told by people I should "embrace my gender fluidity"; "accept I am non binary".

No you morons - I'm a bird, I just happen to understand the offside rule, the forward pass prohibition in rugby and all ways of getting out at cricket. I don't dream of being a princess on my special wedding day; I couldn't tell you all the Karadashians or why they are famous and if you tell me about the mythological gender pay gap I'll puke.

Yet, girlie bits and pieces internally and out. That's because science - apart from a tiny number of glitches - made male and female.

if you are male and love a male - sound; I'm with you. Female and marry a women ? Grand, go for it. M or F and couldn't give two s***es either way ? Fair dos.

But no one "assigned" me as a female. Nature did that a day or so after conception.

PlaneSpeeking

Rennaws wrote: »

If every sane, rational thinking person did the following every day for a about 6 months, i honestly believe we'd solve the problem..

1) Find 1 illiberal every day, preferably a feminist, and offend them.
2) Remind them that it's their choice to be offended and you don't care.
3) Offend them again.

Rinse and repeat..

Please stand for the Dail - you'd get a landslide!!!!!

TheValeyard

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

No you morons - I'm a bird, I just happen to understand the offside rule, the forward pass prohibition in rugby and all ways of getting out at cricket.

Im calling BS,

I refuse to believe that anyone actually understands cricket.

The Bishop Basher

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Please stand for the Dail - you'd get a landslide!!!!!

Thanks for the recommendation but I’d also probably get fleas..

I’ll leave the Dail to the crooks and their cronies..

JohnMc1

Malayalam wrote: »

I really feel like exploding sometimes with the push of transgenderism on children. For adults, I truly do not care what you do with your body or mind - it is your business completely. Feel free!

But the treatment of children with gender dysphoria is the main social issue of my time with which I have the greatest difficulty. The push to lay the medical ground work for the transition of very young children via puberty blockers and ''social transitioning'' is truly insidious. Sure, a lot more of it seems to be in the US / Australia but the Tavistock Institute in the UK is pushing hard there. There are large online communities welcoming in confused kids and no one is saying anything even though this is as bad as pro anorexia or pro cutting sites. A lot of these kids left alone would desist, and/or accept that they are homosexual, but they are being chaperoned by counsellors and medics to make rapid, irreversible changes. The chemicals will harm them - vascular disease, diabetes, bone density. The ironic inherent contradiction in the ridiculous ideology when extrapolated to its conclusion is that children given puberty blockers when young are presenting for gender confirmation surgery at adulthood and finding they do not have sufficient genital tissue to accommodate the operation!
There is absolutely no need for this idiotic detachment of gender from biology at the youngest age - taking girl/boy references out of childhood books, going out of one's way not to promote gender identity from infancy, youth camps and festivals for transkids, even the fetishizing of drag kids. Worse still, pushing the idea that anyone who questions or does not support the fetish is phobic. It's quite perverted, because it emphasises sexuality in children to a degree that I find has positively pedophiliac undertones. I think a lot of these parents have Munchausen's-by-proxy. There are going to be so many fcuked up young people in some years - people who should have been left alone as kids instead of shoe-horned via a hugely-expanding transgender INDUSTRY.


This is the rag to my bull this morning..... Honestly, I could punch these degenerates. NSFW https://transkids.biz/products/extra-small-silicone-packers
Leave the children alone!

The sad irony in all of this is that the people pushing this clear form of child abuse are the ones who say taking your children to Church on Sundays is child abuse.

Malayalam

Don't want to beat a dead horse here, but on the other hand from time to time posting links to current childhood related transgender issues might keep anyone interested in the loop. These are just a sample of indicators that popped up recently on my radar (like I said I keep an eye on this issue)

You will probably have seen recent media coverage of a recent report by the Tavistock Institute which finds that of the 1069 children refered to them between 2011 and 2017 at least 35% of them have some degree of autism. I cannot find a link to the actual report. It was an in-house study and Dr Bernadette Wren, clinical psychologist, works at the Tavistock gender clinic. Some commenting have noted that children with autistic traints can be particularly susceptible to the idea being floated of having been ''born in the wrong body''.
http://en.brinkwire.com/news/up-to-150-youngsters-treated-with-puberty-blocking-jabs-might-not-even-be-transgender/

Also on the mastectomy for children issue, I saw that Jo-Olson-Kennedy, (Medical Director of The Center for Transyouth Health and Development,
Investigator, Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine and Behavioral Health,
Associate Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine of USC - to give her full title) speaking on July 6th at the Gender Spectrum Conference, said that it's okay if young adolescents have their breasts removed because if they change their mind they can go get new ones later.

Like they are detachable objects to be removed and replaced casually... this is a recording of her saying this..
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lwp66N-zAJjoWSEkDJRrEH2UOoFOALX0/view

And a link to a gender affirmation surgeon in Canada, who says that children aged 14 are suitable patients for him to have their breasts removed.
https://www.visageclinic.com/blog/top-surgery-in-toronto/

Dr. Marc DuPéré says:
July 10, 2018 at 10:48 am
Good morning, my surgical center can do surgery on patients 14 and older. Patient’s consent would be essential for age 14-16, and helpful age 16-18. As long as it is clear your child is firm about the decision to transition and with my consultation with him and yourself, I would be happy to help. Next step would be to contact us – 416-929-9800. My office will also send you an email. We also offer Skype and Facetime virtual consultation if you live far away. Dr. D.

Reply

markodaly

The posters advocating and defending the mutilation of children are an embarrassment.
FGM is illegal in this country, yet we can pump a cocktail of body and mind-altering drugs into children and call it 'OK' for some whimsical reason? Pathetic.

JohnMc1

Calhoun wrote: »

Interesting to see all the drama from the LGBT community on Scarlett Johanson's role cast as a trans person.

Shows the hypocrisy of all this crap, as equal as we all are only trans people can be cast in trans roles apparently.

Seems equality is only a one way street.

Have you seen the state of the comic book industry? Only Black people can write about Black people, Gays can only write about gays,etc. Its beyond ridiculous. So them copping a "Only Trans people can play Trans people" is not a huge surprise anymore. The Left have practically gone 3rd Reich on these issues.

I can't feel sorry for Johanson. She went out of her way to pander to these groups. You pander to groups this insane you can't be surprised when they eventually reason to go after you.

JohnMc1

markodaly wrote: »

The posters advocating and defending the mutilation of children are an embarrassment.
FGM is illegal in this country, yet we can pump a cocktail of body and mind-altering drugs into children and call it 'OK' for some whimsical reason? Pathetic.

If it wasn't for double standards the Left wouldn't have any.

Calhoun

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Have you seen the state of the comic book industry? Only Black people can write about Black people, Gays can only write about gays,etc. Its beyond ridiculous. So them copping a "Only Trans people can play Trans people" is not a huge surprise anymore. The Left have practically gone 3rd Reich on these issues.

I can't feel sorry for Johanson. She went out of her way to pander to these groups. You pander to groups this insane you can't be surprised when they eventually reason to go after you.

Well the big fear i would have is that equality should mean equality. You cannot take a position where some people are more equal than others because all you do is breed intolerance.

I don't overly blame her either because if she didnt give into them her career would be over fairly fast.

JohnMc1

Calhoun wrote: »

Well the big fear i would have is that equality should mean equality. You cannot take a position where some people are more equal than others because all you do is breed intolerance.

Unfortunately the Civil Rights groups aren't looking for equal rights. They are looking for superior rights. The big problem now is that they're turning on each other now because they want to be the ultimate victim.

I don't overly blame her either because if she didnt give into them her career would be over fairly fast.

If she wasn't such a far left hack I would feel sorry for her.

PlaneSpeeking

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Im calling BS,

I refuse to believe that anyone actually understands cricket.

Playing and scoring - yes.

The Duckworth Lewis method - not a clue!

Calhoun

Well the whole victim piece seems to be linked to the ideology, the bigger a victim you are equates to you having more of a right to be heard. In this case Scarlett just happened to be lower down the scale of victimhood.

As for more rights indeed but i would also put across the argument that there are attempts to remove rights or rights to be heard by others. The whole gender labels like CIS ect have and are being used to discredit peoples opinions on things, so you no longer have the same right to be heard in some circles as you did in the past.

ceadaoin.

In Scotland, recommendations by trans activists seem to have been adopted into schools without any consultation or thoughts of downsides. These say that parents do not need to be informed if their child is presenting as the opposite gender at school. That parents do not need to be informed if their child will be sharing toilets or changing rooms with another child of the opposite sex. If anyone feels uncomfortable with sharing these spaces with a member of the opposite sex then they are in the wrong and should be made to change elsewhere or just get over it.

These guidelines go against many of the basic rules of the safeguarding of children. They shouldn't be encouraged to keep secrets from their parents, they shouldn't be encouraged to "get over" feeling uncomfortable in certain situations. There is also a proposal that a "named person" of the child's choosing be allowed to consent to children as young as 12 to receive hormone blockers, breast binders etc and even change the sex on their birth certificate if the parents refuse to give consent. Despite this proposal failing previously due to privacy concerns, it is still being pushed by the Scottish government.

Children as young as 12 should be able to change gender on their birth certificate without parental backing, Scotland’s commisioner for young people has said.

Speaking in response to a Scottish Government consultation into updating gender recognition laws, Bruce Adamson said youngsters who believed they were born the wrong gender should be able to make the amendment without seeking parental approval.


He said: “It would be illogical for parental consent to then be required for legal recognition of a transition the young person has been able to effect without it.”

This push coming from a vocal minority of activists to portray children as able to make informed decisions which will have long reaching consequences, as well as attempting to remove any parental involvement or input from the situation is quite worrying tbh. Even more so that it is being adopted by members of government. Would this be allowed if a child was insisting that they wanted to get married? No way would it so why is this any different?

Calhoun

It would seem there is a bit of an agenda at play to widen up the minority group by bypassing parents all together.

Going to be some horror stories down the line, you wonder what other rigths they will push for children to have in the future.

Have you got a link btw to that article.

ceadaoin.

Calhoun wrote: »

It would seem there is a bit of an agenda at play to widen up the minority group by bypassing parents all together.

Going to be some horror stories down the line, you wonder what other rigths they will push for children to have in the future.

Have you got a link btw to that article.

Do you mean this one?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/call-to-let-scots-children-swap-gender-on-birth-certificate-1-4746496

SterlingArcher

Why didn't they get a real gay man to play Andrew Beckett the film Philadelphia or at least John Travolta. Tom hanks bringing all that extra attention to the issue.

Actually why did they not get a real pilot to play the part of Sully, instead of Tom Hanks. God damn Tom Hanks again, he is actually a greedy sob.

Frankly those very vocal minority do trans people no good whatsoever. It's like they are actually out to sabotage. Not surprisingly many trans people are acutely aware of this ugly misrepresentation and do not want to be lumped in with radical fools.

<snip>

2 Scoops

First off, I find what they are doing to those kids repulsive and sickening. Secondly, what's to stop me tomorrow going to the register and doctors office and changing my official sex to female even though I'm male and I'm fine with that? It's easily done in places like Canada. This whole "movement" is batshít crazy. For every person who's genuinely afflicted mentally with gender issues there must be another 5 who do it for social protection and stigma just because they can. Looking at footage of US campuses is like watching a full blown circus at times and the worst part is there's a tonne of Marxist ridden professors pushing this nonsense.

I give kudos to this kid. There needs to be more like him

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/10/07/a-university-told-students-to-select-their-gender-pronouns-one-chose-his-majesty/?utm_term=.ad75b34ab1ee

WinnyThePoo

2 Scoops wrote: »

First off, I find what they are doing to those kids repulsive and sickening. Secondly, what's to stop me tomorrow going to the register and doctors office and changing my official sex to female even though I'm male and I'm fine with that? It's easily done in places like Canada. This whole "movement" is batshít crazy. For every person who's genuinely afflicted mentally with gender issues there must be another 5 who do it for social protection and stigma just because they can. Looking at footage of US campuses is like watching a full blown circus at times and the worst part is there's a tonne of Marxist ridden professors pushing this nonsense.

I give kudos to this kid. There needs to be more like him

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/10/07/a-university-told-students-to-select-their-gender-pronouns-one-chose-his-majesty/?utm_term=.ad75b34ab1ee

Why would you change your gender? if you don't want to?. Sounds like an incredibly stupid thing to do.

The transgender movement is bat**** crazy? I know you called transsexuals 'crazies' in the past . Haven't you learned anything since ?.

Last bolded part. Nonsense as usual.

2 Scoops

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Why would you change your gender? if you don't want to?. Sounds like an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Why would you do anything in life? If you were a social outcast and an opportunity arises where you can become part of a protected group and not be questioned people will be attracted to it like any cult or religion. That's human nature.

The transgender movement is bat**** crazy? I know you called transsexuals 'crazies' in the past . Haven't you learned anything since ?.

I'm not calling those who are genuinely afflicted with issues batshít crazy. I'm calling the activists and far left loons who are pushing for things like in the OP batshít crazy. Maybe crazy is the wrong word, power hungry, ideologically driven authoritarian snakes who have no affliction for human suffering might be a more apt way of describing them.

P_1

Apologies, I promised a sober reply and didn't get round to it. Here it is.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think the point being made is that you didn't mention anywhere about the abuse of children, which is exactly what was done at the time when children were separated from their parents and subjected to experimental treatments, and these people were supported and funded by the State.

I get this 100%. I guess being childless and not wanting any has left something of a blind spot in my world view. Must work on that.

It's not nearly as benign as you make out though. You're thinking inside your own black and white binary world when you can only perceive people being themselves and causing no harm to others, when the fact is that there are people campaigning for harm to be done to children so that they as adults can feel better about themselves. That's where the harm is, and to ignore that or pretend there is no harm is what causes people to question the ideology even more, because they see that harm is being done, and wonder why are a small minority of people playing down the harm being done or attempting to put people off asking questions by claiming they are transphobic.

Again a very fair point. My world view would view forcing anything on another person who does not consent to that as being abusive. With advanced apologies for any presumptions made I'd imagine you would be of a similar mindset. A parent being supportive of their child if their child expresses a wish to explore their gender is fine, a parent forcing their male child to wear a dress so the parent can feel "woke" is not.

Instead of reaching for the transphobic label when you don't like the ideology being questioned, it would be more in your interests to acknowledge that the vast majority of adults who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria do not opt for medical transition, and their discomfort is instead alleviated by acceptance. There are people diagnosed with gender dysphoria who choose not to even socially transition as it's not their dysphoria causes them mental distress, but the lack of acceptance from their families, their peer groups, their work colleagues, and even some people within the transgender community who refer to them pejoratively as 'transtrenders' - those who have chosen not to undergo either medical transition or gender confirmation surgery.

Yes using the transphobia label was unfair to paint people asking valid questions was a bad call and my apologies for that. I'll make no apologies for painting those who used transphobic terms with it though.

I've never heard of the "transtender" term, must ask some of my friends about that. It strikes me as being somewhat similar to the biphobia that exists with some gay men and women.

It's actually people who have chosen to medically transition or go as far as having gender confirmation surgery are in a minority who want the power to dictate to the majority how they should be able to raise their children, or else risk having their children removed from their care. That too, is just as much a restrictive black and white binary as the one you are rallying against. The difference isn't motivated by transphobia, it's motivated by a difference of perspective.

Again quite true.

Using terms like 'cis' to refer to people who are not transgender, and it's a term that is generally used in the pejorative sense, is attempting to shift the paradigm of gender congruity to one where 'cis' is perceived as something undesirable. It's a political and linguistic manoeuver which doesn't really work if it's proponents reject a label they find undesirable, while at the same time suggesting that their attempt to label people is merely a benign classification of their opposite. It's transparent that their motivation is anything but benign.

That is simply a byproduct of the circle I associate with. There is no malice intended in the use of the phrase "cis". We simply use it as an adjective. I can see how it can be problematic though given how it has become politicized the other side of the Atlantic.

Except that's not really true, is it?

The reason why objections on either side exist is because people do define people in ways in which they find useful, and with regard to children, attempts to define children as transgender before they've even reached puberty is something which people are going to find objectionable. It's an attempt to paint children into a corner by pathologising observed behaviour and attitudes towards themselves and towards others. Children define themselves according to behaviours and attitudes they observe in others. Adults define children's behaviours and attitudes according to themselves. I have no issue with telling other adults who try to define my child according to their standards, that I would appreciate if they didn't do that. If they attempt to continue to do it, I'm still not going to be rude about it, but I would suggest that they keep their projections of their issues onto my child, to themselves. That may have them perceive me as transphobic, but from my perspective, their behaviour and their attitude towards others is that of an asshole. In terms of how my child is raised, my perspective carries a hell of a lot more weight to me than their perspective.

Again quite reasonable. Though generally I'm bloody useless with kids.

It's very easy to categorise a difference of opinion as an expression of fear and anger of something that people don't understand, or blatant transphobia or whatever else. But differences of opinion are based on different standards, and simply labelling a difference of opinion as the person being afraid of or angered or misunderstanding or blatant transphobia really doesn't contribute anything towards further understanding. I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it.

Similarly, as you suggested earlier - Irish people generally have a sense of what's the right thing to do, and the more extreme elements in any movement do not represent the majority. Why then would you assume that the majority of people who disagree with your opinion don't understand or are afraid, angry or transphobic? It's a bit of a leap, which you yourself point out is rather fallacious logic.

Very true and one of the main issues with communicating through the medium of text. Particularly when the red mist descends.

That's not really the question that people are asking though, is it? What people are questioning is other people's authority to define what those children should become, according to their perception. Children of that age cannot possibly be fully armed with the facts or their eyes wide open when they are not fully developed adults themselves for one thing, and secondly when nobody, even the world's foremost experts in science, medicine, law, sociology, psychology, psychiatry endocrinology and so on, can offer them any guarantees of outcomes whatsoever. At least as adults themselves, then they are in a far better position to understand their condition and their options and the potential outcomes for themselves as adults that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Now that is the $64,000 question. Genuinely I have no answer for it. All I can go by is what friends of mine who have gone through it have told me of their experience. No more, no less. Based on what they have told me I would lean towards the "letting the individual decide" side of the argument but I (or at least I'd like to think I can) see the valid questions those on the other side of it would have.

As a final thought, I'd like to direct people's attention to who is funding the recent anti-trans movement and the sudden rise to prominence of TERF thinking. Spoller alert, it's the same American types who funded the No side of our two recent refernda. Just ask yourself these two questions, why are they funding this and if they're advocating for something is it all that great an idea to go along with it?

Apologies for the wall of text.

The Rape of Lucretia

Not sure its worth getting too worked up about. Kids of all generation have always had fads that just come and go: yoyos, Rubik's Cubes, wearing their caps backwards, leg warmers, being 'hip', or 'groovy' or whatever the vibe of the moment is. There were no trans people around in my day and we all came through OK. It may be 'in' at the moment, but like the rest, it will fade away when it becomes too mainstream and the next generation comes along wanting to be different to the one before.

P_1

2 Scoops wrote: »

Yeah except you're forgetting about the fact the Children have to grow up with their bodies and hormones all messed with because their parents decided among themselves that a 4 year old toddler has the mental capacity to make decisions which will impact the rest of his/her natural life.

You're being a bit unfair there now. I highly doubt any right thinking person would agree with a 4 year old transitioning.

2 Scoops

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not sure its worth getting too worked up about. Kids of all generation have always had fads that just come and go: yoyos, Rubik's Cubes, wearing their caps backwards, leg warmers, being 'hip', or 'groovy' or whatever the vibe of the moment is. There were no trans people around in my day and we all came through OK. It may be 'in' at the moment, but like the rest, it will fade away when it becomes too mainstream and the next generation comes along wanting to be different to the one before.

Yeah except you're forgetting about the fact the Children have to grow up with their bodies, hormones and childhood all messed with because their parents decided among themselves that a 4 year old toddler has the mental capacity to make decisions which will impact the rest of his/her natural life.

2 Scoops

P_1 wrote: »

You're being a bit unfair there now. I highly doubt any right thinking person would agree with a 4 year old transitioning.

What age is the cut off point so, 6,7?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-parenting/u-s-parents-accept-childrens-transgender-identity-by-age-three-idUSKBN14B1C8

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/transgender-children-my-son-told-me-he-was-a-girl/

ceadaoin.

2 Scoops wrote: »

What age is the cut off point so, 6,7?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-parenting/u-s-parents-accept-childrens-transgender-identity-by-age-three-idUSKBN14B1C8

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/transgender-children-my-son-told-me-he-was-a-girl/

Today, at age 9, Penelope is happy and healthy as a boy who loves karate and super heroes and decided to keep his birth name.

They went straight from the therapist to the store to buy Trinity a dress and pink pajamas, and they noticed an immediate change. Their depressed child became happy.

“She saw her dress and she put it on immediately. And she would not take it off,” Neal said. “We never swayed in our love and support for her.”

For Kathryn, it was obvious early on that Rudy was not like his elder brother. ‘Jack was naturally boyish. So when Rudy preferred playing with my jewellery to toy cars as a toddler, I thought, “He’s just a different kind of boy. Maybe he’ll be gay.”’As soon as he was able to decide, Rudy would quietly show a preference for playing with girls, and for girls’ clothes.

The clinic advised that Rudy should start to make his own choices and, specifically, recommended that he was allowed to pick an item of clothing. ‘He chose a Disney princess nightie and skipped around the house in it, laughing,’


Towards the end of Year 1 at school, Rudy started wearing girls’ clothes at home. ‘I showed pictures to his teacher,’ Kathryn says. ‘I wanted the school to know what might be coming, and they were really understanding’. That summer, on holiday in Spain, Kathryn and Mark decided to let the then six-year-old Rudy wear what he wanted.

‘Of course, he chose to dress as a girl. I watched him at the disco, chatting to girls, wearing a pink glittery dress. That was a turning point.

All I'm seeing here is gender stereotypes. These kids should be allowed to wear what they want and like what they want without being told that it's actually possible to literally change sex, because it isn't. Why can't it be ok for a boy to like sparkly princess dresses and for a girl to like karate and jeans without them having to "live as" the opposite gender? Sometimes my daughter wears a princess dress and sometimes a super Mario outfit, sometimes she plays with Barbie's and sometimes it's Lego. Some of these idiots would have her labelled as gender fluid when she is just a child who doesn't understand why some things are "for boys" and vice versa.

Studies have shown that gender non conformity as a child is a likely indicator that the child is gay, not transgender. If they are still convinced they are really another gender at 16+ then fine but if left to it without being set on the path of social transition and puberty blockers, they more than likely won't.

P_1

ceadaoin. wrote: »

All I'm seeing here is gender stereotypes. These kids should be allowed to wear what they want and like what they want without being told that it's actually possible to literally change sex, because it isn't. Why can't it be ok for a boy to like sparkly princess dresses and for a girl to like karate and jeans without them having to "live as" the opposite gender? Sometimes my daughter wears a princess dress and sometimes a super Mario outfit, sometimes she plays with Barbie's and sometimes it's Lego. Some of these idiots would have her labelled as gender fluid when she is just a child who doesn't understand why some things are "for boys" and vice versa.

Studies have shown that gender non conformity as a child is a likely indicator that the child is gay, not transgender. If they are still convinced they are really another gender at 16+ then fine but if left to it without being set on the path of social transition and puberty blockers, they more than likely won't.

That is interesting. Do you have a link or 2 I can store away for a lazy Sunday morning with a coffee?

Buford T. Justice XIX

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Why didn't they get a real gay man to play Andrew Beckett the film Philadelphia or at least John Travolta. Tom hanks bringing all that extra attention to the issue.

Actually why did they not get a real pilot to play the part of Sully, instead of Tom Hanks. God damn Tom Hanks again, he is actually a greedy sob.

Frankly those very vocal minority do trans people no good whatsoever. It's like they are actually out to sabotage. Not surprisingly many trans people are acutely aware of this ugly misrepresentation and do not want to be lumped in with radical fools.

<snip>

Mod note: If you have a problem with moderation elsewhere on the site, AH is not the place to discuss it. Take it up with Cmods of that forum or in the DRP forum



Buford T. Justice

One eyed Jack

P_1 wrote: »

Again a very fair point. My world view would view forcing anything on another person who does not consent to that as being abusive. With advanced apologies for any presumptions made I'd imagine you would be of a similar mindset. A parent being supportive of their child if their child expresses a wish to explore their gender is fine, a parent forcing their male child to wear a dress so the parent can feel "woke" is not.

I'd say it depends entirely upon on context. There are numerous things I have done for my child without his consent, things he has been vehemently opposed to, like having to force him to wash himself, basic hygiene, have him do his homework, enrol him in activities which I know will help his personal development. Many, many ways in which I will force him to do things he doesn't want to do because as far as I'm concerned, my duty as a parent is to guide him, not have him simply guide himself, because he doesn't have the knowledge that I do or the maturity or the capacity yet to understand so much of the world and the things that I as his parent and as an adult understand to a much greater degree than he can at any given point in his development from childhood to adulthood. I would be more concerned with guiding him in exploring history, science, religion, geography, arts and literature and so on, rather than encouraging him to explore himself and his gender identity. I prefer that he would explore outwards rather than inwards so to speak. That way he understands the world around him, rather than expecting that the world should understand him, so to speak.

For example, he's an avid reader of David Walliams books, and Walliams first books was The Boy In The Dress. I'd recommend any parent should encourage their children read that book a lot sooner than I'd recommend any parent should encourage their children to read My Princess Boy. At least The Boy in the Dress is a fun read for both adults and children alike, and a lot easier to relate to real life experiences for children and adults than what I would consider a handbook written for narcissists. I can understand other people, whether they be parents or not would be of a different opinion.

Yes using the transphobia label was unfair to paint people asking valid questions was a bad call and my apologies for that. I'll make no apologies for painting those who used transphobic terms with it though.

I've never heard of the "transtender" term, must ask some of my friends about that. It strikes me as being somewhat similar to the biphobia that exists with some gay men and women.

Ah no to be fair I think there are times when it's a legitimate perspective of someone's opinion, but I don't think it does anyone any favours when these terms are thrown around so lightly. If something is transphobic, people will generally see it for what it is, but one of the things with throwing the label out there willy nilly is that the term itself loses it's barb, and then just isn't taken seriously as it once was.

Honestly I don't know will your friends have heard of it because it's still very much in the realms of bloggers, vloggers and social media 'influencers' like Kalvin Karrah, Miss London and so on. In opposition of course they are labelled with terms like truscum/transmed and a couple of other choice terms. Internet Infamy gives rise to some really awful people.

That is simply a byproduct of the circle I associate with. There is no malice intended in the use of the phrase "cis". We simply use it as an adjective. I can see how it can be problematic though given how it has become politicized the other side of the Atlantic.

Oh sure, and I do understand that some people use it with no intent to be malicious whatsoever, but it's been tainted by a minority of utter fcukwits and tbh I don't think anyone has any interest in "reclaiming" a word that originated in gender studies academics in the 70's. 'Cis' has legitimate use as an antonym of 'trans' in a medical and scientific context, not so much in a social context - cis and trans fatty acids for example, but that's generally not the context it's used in everyday conversation, or both sides bitching at each other is probably more accurate.

Now that is the $64,000 question. Genuinely I have no answer for it. All I can go by is what friends of mine who have gone through it have told me of their experience. No more, no less. Based on what they have told me I would lean towards the "letting the individual decide" side of the argument but I (or at least I'd like to think I can) see the valid questions those on the other side of it would have.

Oh sure, and that's one of the things your friends have now that they didn't have when they were children - experience. The other thing your friends have that they didn't have when they were children is they have a much greater understanding of the financial implications of their decisions for themselves and for others. You're probably aware already of the costs of transitioning, and their means are going to be a determinant factor in just how far they can go, and whether or not they can afford the necessary hormone treatments that they are required to be on for the rest of their lives. The other thing your friends may well be far more acutely aware of than when they were children are the health and social implications. Medical insurance doesn't, and won't cover everything, and that's if an adult is fortunate enough to be able to afford medical insurance in the first place. There's only so much of that a child will understand, because that's all they can understand, because they're a child and have no experience of adulthood, and that's why parents are there to guide them, rather than the parents allowing themselves to be guided by the child.

I'd be broke if I were to allow my child explore his love of all things that cost a small mortgage. He's got expensive taste, and he can explore his love of all things expensive when he's an adult and can afford to fund his own exploration himself! I'm guessing he won't nearly be quite so eager to explore anything when he has to fund it himself :pac:

As a final thought, I'd like to direct people's attention to who is funding the recent anti-trans movement and the sudden rise to prominence of TERF thinking. Spoller alert, it's the same American types who funded the No side of our two recent refernda. Just ask yourself these two questions, why are they funding this and if they're advocating for something is it all that great an idea to go along with it?

Both sides are two cheeks of the same arse really - one as politically motivated as the other. Politics isn't really my bag, identity politics even less so. I'm not interested in who's funding what, but rather I'm more interested in their ideas, as it's on that basis I'll determine whether or not their ideas are something I could support or not. There have been many times I've lent my support to ideas only to later regret supporting those ideas. That applies to any idea really - seemed like a good idea at the time, turned out later it was an awful idea, and if I can say that as an adult, I certainly wouldn't think children could ever possibly be in any position to make those kinds of decisions for themselves until they are adults and have some more experience of being an adult under their belts.

SterlingArcher

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Mod note: If you have a problem with moderation elsewhere on the site, AH is not the place to discuss it. Take it up with Cmods of that forum or in the DRP forum



Buford T. Justice

What the hell are you on about?

That last bit was a joke because I happened to post in another thread along the same line and are in a dispute, didn't say anything about bad moderation?

ceadaoin.

P_1 wrote: »

That is interesting. Do you have a link or 2 I can store away for a lazy Sunday morning with a coffee?

Sure


https://www.thecut.com/2016/07/whats-missing-from-the-conversation-about-transgender-kids.html

http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html?m=1

https://www.transgendertrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Steensma-2013_desistance-rates.pdf

Graces7

By all means laugh at this post of mine.. I am but a simple country lady..

And this has been on my mind days now.

Years ago in a different country when i kept hens and needed a cockerel so I could raise chicks, I bought in a youngster as needed new blood etc,

He was a fine young bird, but young! He would follow me round, into the house. Gentle and tame and not a crow out of him...

More feminine than masculine.. more hen than cockerel

THEN the testosterone came in and POW. You would not recognise the bird... Aggressive. cocky ( sorry!), loud, ,,,,,,total change in all aspects..totally male in maturity and completeness

A young child before their hormones etc come in,before sexual maturity,is not the whole or real person. Incomplete and ..yes of no sex

I think you see the parallel?

It is a real and deluded form of physical and psych, abuse to pervert the reality of that child;s true and whole and mature REAL adult ID.

Not sure I have expressed this well but I know what I mean!

P_1

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Cutting this to spare people on the phones the giant scrol

First of all you sound like a bloody awesome parent

I've asked about and they know of the term, bloody hell the twittersphere is a strange, strange place indeed. Though it has led me to lose a lot of respect I had for Graham Linehan.

The financial implications really do need to be more transparent. I'm unsure if the hormones needed are covered under the LTI scheme or not. If they aren't, will there be a backlash if they were introduced for example.

You have the right idea ignoring the politics behind it. I wish I had that idea, now all I have is a headache and a renewed sense for arguing!

HappyAsLarE

And so it begins...

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/barber-who-discriminated-against-transgender-man-by-refusing-give-him-short-back-and-sides-ordered-to-pay-him-5k-37157793.html

How can the barber be at fault here?

Calhoun

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

And so it begins...

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/barber-who-discriminated-against-transgender-man-by-refusing-give-him-short-back-and-sides-ordered-to-pay-him-5k-37157793.html

How can the barber be at fault here?

How do you mean? is there a difference between male and female hair that he couldnt have done it?

HappyAsLarE

Calhoun wrote: »

How do you mean? is there a difference between male and female hair that he couldnt have done it?

Apparently he had an agreement with a sister hair dressers not to give women cheap haircuts as it would take business off them.

seanrambo87

HappyAsLarE wrote:

How can the barber be at fault here?

I read that earlier, couldn't believe it, very dangerous precedent imo.
Seemed very innocent. They had a no female hair cutting agreement with a local salon and the incident occurred weeks before "he" started the hormone therapy.
Mad world altogether.

HappyAsLarE

seanrambo87 wrote: »

I read that earlier, couldn't believe it, very dangerous precedent imo.
Seemed very innocent. They had a no female hair cutting agreement with a local salon and the incident occurred weeks before "he" started the hormone therapy.
Mad world altogether.

That’s what I was thinking. It is clearly a woman.

Neyite

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

And so it begins...

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/barber-who-discriminated-against-transgender-man-by-refusing-give-him-short-back-and-sides-ordered-to-pay-him-5k-37157793.html

How can the barber be at fault here?

I'm fine with it tbh. No such thing as male or female hair. Hair is hair.

If a man has long hair and goes into a hairdresser they wouldn't turn him (or his money!) away. But women who want a short back and sides often get turned away from a barbers. To me its irrelevant genderising of gender neutral stuff.

It's annoying for women who do want a simple male haircut to have to go and pay multiple times the price of what a barber charges for the same cut because a barber refuses to cut it.

thebaz

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

And so it begins...

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/barber-who-discriminated-against-transgender-man-by-refusing-give-him-short-back-and-sides-ordered-to-pay-him-5k-37157793.html

How can the barber be at fault here?

PC Nonsense - just go to a different barber , you can't have it both ways - anyway I just give up , Ireland has gone too far

HappyAsLarE

Neyite wrote: »

I'm fine with it tbh. No such thing as male or female hair. Hair is hair.

If a man has long hair and goes into a hairdresser they wouldn't turn him (or his money!) away. But women who want a short back and sides often get turned away from a barbers. To me its irrelevant genderising of gender neutral stuff.

It's annoying for women who do want a simple male haircut to have to go and pay multiple times the price of what a barber charges for the same cut because a barber refuses to cut it.

Fair point.

I guess the barbers would fear of what a woman would deem a good enough standard of hair cut.

The Bishop Basher

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

And so it begins...

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/barber-who-discriminated-against-transgender-man-by-refusing-give-him-short-back-and-sides-ordered-to-pay-him-5k-37157793.html

How can the barber be at fault here?

Saw this..

The line that struck a chord with me was..

“the barber, mistakenly believing he was a woman, replied ’I don’t cut ladies hair’.”

So what’s the issue ? How is it mistakenly?

He is a women.. they don’t cut women’s hair

Are business’s not allowed make their own rules..

Go to another barber that cuts women’s hair ffs

HappyAsLarE

Rennaws wrote: »

Saw this..

The line that struck a chord with me was..

“the barber, mistakenly believing he was a woman, replied ’I don’t cut ladies hair’.”

So what’s the issue ? How is mistakenly?

He is a women..

Are business’s not allowed make their own rules..

Go to another barber that cuts women’s hair ffs

Well careful now...they can’t say they won’t cut black peoples hair, gay peoples etc. I think we all agree on that.

LLMMLL

Rennaws wrote: »

Saw this..

The line that struck a chord with me was..

“the barber, mistakenly believing he was a woman, replied ’I don’t cut ladies hair’.”

So what’s the issue ? How is it mistakenly?

He is a women.. they don’t cut women’s hair

Are business’s not allowed make their own rules..

Go to another barber that cuts women’s hair ffs

Businesses are allowed make their own rules.

And because of these rules they may find themselves with a case taken against them.

It’s a good outcome.

Neyite

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Fair point.

I guess the barbers would fear of what a woman would deem a good enough standard of hair cut.

Maybe, but a woman going in and saying short back and sides or asking for a number 2 all over is asking for the very same as a man, including the same standard. Now if she walked in asking for a blue rinse, wash and set, the barber had every right to send her up the road to the hairdressers, because it's a particular style that they might not be practised in, just like when all the 80's men got permed mullets, it was the hairdressers that had the training to do them..