Peak Trans

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be the same. However, if a friend INSISTED that I call him a woman, I'd tell him to **** off. Respect has to work both ways

So so right!!!

My best mate actually is a man - if he said tomorrow he wanted to be a woman, I'd have his back completely.

However if I slipped and called him by the name I've called him for 20 years, I doubt he'd get all snippy and go "you know it's DAPHNE now!!" - and do me for discrimination or a hate crime!

MadYaker

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd be the same. However, if a friend INSISTED that I call him a woman, I'd tell him to **** off. Respect has to work both ways

Ah yeah if they were being arsey about it. But I’d try to be a good friend and play along. Especially if they suffer from something like gender dysmorphia. Acceptance from their friends and family would go along way to helping them live a happy life.

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

Right so you’re going to provide criteria that aren’t influenced by personal belief.....

Don’t quit the day job to become a scientist.

LLMMLL

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Don’t quit the day job to become a scientist.

My day job is a scientist. What’s yours?

ELM327

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Don’t quit the day job to become a scientist.

He's more likely to be a scientologist to a scientist to be fair. :P
Anyone working in the sciences would be aware of the difference between objective/verifiable and subjective/non-verifiable data.

MadYaker

MadYaker wrote: »

Ah yeah if they were being arsey about it. But I’d try to be a good friend and play along. Especially if they suffer from something like gender dysmorphia. Acceptance from their friends and family would go along way to helping them live a happy life.

Completely agree. But cases like this seem to dilute the definition of discrimination and transphobia and are much more detrimental to the chances of trans or people suffering from dysmorphia being accepted by wider society.

You live how you want to live, but don't tell me that I MUST be compliant for fear of suffering consequences.

That's why I agree with business' being able to choose who they cater for. For example, if a shop refused to serve black people, then fire ahead. They won't get custom from me or anyone I know. Let them go out of business. I'd rather live in a world where people aren't afraid to show their true colours. At least then I'd know who to avoid.

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

My day job is a scientist. What’s yours?

I could do your job better than you. OMG scarlet for you.

Calhoun

ELM327 wrote: »

We're through the looking glass people.
Her penis. And someone defending it.

BattleCorp wrote: »

"her penis"

Does not compute.

I think this is transphobic and discriminatory :P, you should embrace her penis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-PgHSZh6U good video explaining why we are all trans phobic.

Rory28

Deleted User wrote: »

That's why I agree with business' being able to choose who they cater for. For example, if a shop refused to serve black people, then fire ahead. They won't get custom from me or anyone I know. Let them go out of business. I'd rather live in a world where people aren't afraid to show their true colours. At least then I'd know who to avoid.

So lets say you are the hypothetical black man here and you live in a small town. You go down to the shop to pick up some food the weekend but they wont serve you because you are black. Fine says you. I'll go to the other shop. You get there and are refused again because you are black. Fine says you. I'll go to the town over to get some food. You get there and are refused again because you are black but these tell you the city shops serve your kind.

Now whenever you want food you have to leave your town and travel to a city.

If you provide a service to the public then you provide it to all of the public.

Calhoun

LLMMLL wrote: »

My day job is a scientist. What’s yours?

Social Scientist?

BattleCorp

Calhoun wrote: »

I think this is transphobic and discriminatory :P, you should embrace her penis.

Sorry, the only penis I'm willing to embrace is my own.

LLMMLL

Calhoun wrote: »

Social Scientist?

Nope. The hardest of the hard sciences.

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope. The hardest of the hard sciences.

My science is harder than yours.

Calhoun

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sorry, the only penis I'm willing to embrace is my own.

I think you should watch this video sir and understand why you are wrong :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-PgHSZh6U

LLMMLL

ELM327 wrote: »

He's more likely to be a scientologist to a scientist to be fair. :P
Anyone working in the sciences would be aware of the difference between objective/verifiable and subjective/non-verifiable data.

As a scientist I am aware of that distinction.

As a normal person with a brain I am also aware that we were discussing the objectivity/subjectivity of criteria, not data.

Calhoun

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope. The hardest of the hard sciences.

Some social scientists believe their science is super hard. Obviously not biology at any rate.

PlaneSpeeking

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

My science is harder than yours.

God I hope it's geology and no humans are involved.

LLMMLL

Calhoun wrote: »

Some social scientists believe their science is super hard. Obviously not biology at any rate.

Right.....but..... I said I’m not a social scientist..... not that I believed social science was a hard science.....sigh

Rory28

Rory28 wrote: »

So lets say you are the hypothetical black man here and you live in a small town. You go down to the shop to pick up some food the weekend but they wont serve you because you are black. Fine says you. I'll go to the other shop. You get there and are refused again because you are black. Fine says you. I'll go to the town over to get some food. You get there and are refused again because you are black but these tell you the city shops serve your kind.

Now whenever you want food you have to leave your town and travel to a city.

If you provide a service to the public then you provide it to all of the public.

If I wore a T-Shirt saying "Gayness is Evil" should I expect to get entry to the George? If I had a picture of Mohammed getting rimmed by a pig, should I expect to be served in a muslim bakery? If I have a penis, should I expect to be allowed in to a women's sauna? If I am a woman, should I expect to be allowed join the freemasons?

If they provide services to the public, then surely I could sue them for discrimination in any/all the above cases.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

If I wore a T-Shirt saying "Gayness is Evil" should I expect to get entry to the George? If I had a picture of Mohammed getting rimmed by a pig, should I expect to be served in a muslim bakery? If I have a penis, should I expect to be allowed in to a women's sauna? If I am a woman, should I expect to be allowed join the freemasons?

If they provide services to the public, then surely I could sue them for discrimination in any/all the above cases.

If you wear that I will buy you many pints! And I drink in the George on occasions!!!

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If I wore a T-Shirt saying "Gayness is Evil" should I expect to get entry to the George? If I had a picture of Mohammed getting rimmed by a pig, should I expect to be served in a muslim bakery? If I have a penis, should I expect to be allowed in to a women's sauna? If I am a woman, should I expect to be allowed join the freemasons?

If they provide services to the public, then surely I could sue them for discrimination in any/all the above cases.

Bizarre arguments. Really bizarre.

Any pub could refuse to serve you for wearing an offensive tshirt.

None of this would fall under equality legislation.

Actually, a hairdressers near me does children's haircuts for half of the price. Can I sue them if I identify as younger? Or for discrimination due to age?

I admit they are bizarre. Not enough/too much coffee.

The last two I thought would be covered.

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

As a scientist I am aware of that distinction.

As a normal person with a brain I am also aware that we were discussing the objectivity/subjectivity of criteria, not data.

So you think it is subjective to pick criteria that clearly provide evidence of sex?

If a vet does a reach around to check the sex of an animal, is that subjective or objective?

PlaneSpeeking

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

So you think it is subjective to pick criteria that clearly provide evidence of sex?

If a vet does a reach around to check the sex of an animal, is that subjective or objective?

What about how I know my budgie is a boy ? He has a different coloured area above his beak. Is that wrong now ??

In parakeets its actually blue for a male and pink for a female!!! Bloody transphobic avians!!!!!

HappyAsLarE

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

What about how I know my budgie is a boy ? He has a different coloured area above his beak. Is that wrong now ??

In parakeets its actually blue for a male and pink for a female!!! Bloody transphobic avians!!!!!

Too subjective, man.

LLMMLL

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

So you think it is subjective to pick criteria that clearly provide evidence of sex?

If a vet does a reach around to check the sex of an animal, is that subjective or objective?

It has elements of subjectivity and objectivity.

But that’s not the important distinction of criteria for a vet.

For a vet what matters is that the criteria he uses are ADEQUATE.

Which they would be in this case.

ELM327

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Too subjective, man.

Did you just assume Zer gender?

PlaneSpeeking

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Too subjective, man.

Seamus says "cheep how very dare you! Cheep!"

PlaneSpeeking

ELM327 wrote: »

Did you just assume Zer gender?

Well I have no penis but for some that's not an objective criteria I'm a woman - so, well who knows!!!

LLMMLL

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

What about how I know my budgie is a boy ? He has a different coloured area above his beak. Is that wrong now ??

In parakeets its actually blue for a male and pink for a female!!! Bloody transphobic avians!!!!!

I just had to do one search for identifying whether a budgie is Male or female to find an article saying how easy it is to get it wrong. Pale blue vs royal blue. Wow what an objective criteria.

Are you suggesting that whether or not you were born with a penis or a vagina is not adequate criteria to differentiate between a man and a woman?

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

It has elements of subjectivity and objectivity.

But that’s not the important distinction of criteria for a vet.

For a vet what matters is that the criteria he uses are ADEQUATE.

Which they would be in this case.

My original point - I could define many objective criteria. Did you need me to say they would be adequate?

Scientist me hole.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you suggesting that whether or not you were born with a penis or a vagina is not adequate criteria to differentiate between a man or a woman?

As we are told to use the phrase "her penis", I suspect that to be the case exactly.

God I wish I had gone to school now rather that the 80s. All that studying for Biology O Level - I could have just made nonsense up!!!

"Name the male part of the flower labelled here:"

"Oh so just because it's a stamen you assume it's a male organ ? 2 marks please".

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you suggesting that whether or not you were born with a penis or a vagina is not adequate criteria to differentiate between a man and a woman?

In most cases it is. In some cases it’s not.

In the cases where it’s not (trans people) then the criteria should not be forced upon them, because it’s not adequate in this case.

LLMMLL

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

My original point - I could define many objective criteria. Did you need me to say they would be adequate?

Scientist me hole.

But your criteria would not be objective. They would be your opinion on what data (which could be subjective or objective) should be taken to identify a male or female.

That’s not a matter of adequacy. The vet example is.

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

But your criteria would not be objective. They would be your opinion on what data (which could be subjective or objective) should be taken to identify a male or female.

That’s not a matter of adequacy. The vet example is.

So essentially you would be disputing that the known differences between men and women are not defining features of men and women.

That a penis is neither male nor female.

The reality is that you’re just being awkward and tolerant for the sake of it.

TheValeyard

Do ladies nights still exist in pubs?
Potential minefield. Whose to say that another person identifies as a woman for the discounts or free entry?

PlaneSpeeking

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

So essentially you would be disputing that the known differences between men and women are not defining features of men and women.

That a penis is neither male nor female.

The reality is that you’re just being awkward and tolerant for the sake of it.

A penis may not be male or female but it is only ever attached to one of these!

You can be born without one and have one surgically added - still going on a man.

Though a colleague is a plastic surgeon and says it's easier to turn a glove inside out than build a hill, so I suspect a man becoming a woman is easier than the other way around.

HappyAsLarE

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Do ladies nights still exist in pubs?
Potential minefield. Whose to say that another person identifies as a woman for the discounts or free entry?

Well apparently we have no way of testing for the truth anymore.

PlaneSpeeking

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Do ladies nights still exist in pubs?
Potential minefield. Whose to say that another person identifies as a woman for the discounts or free entry?

Yes. And I beg for your safety do not go to one!

I'm told they are like watching a gazelle eaten by 20 lions - but with perfume and lambrini.

HappyAsLarE

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

A penis may not be male or female but it is only ever attached to one of these!

You can be born without one and have one surgically added - still going on a man.

Though a colleague is a plastic surgeon and says it's easier to turn a glove inside out than build a hill, so I suspect a man becoming a woman is easier than the other way around.

You can test if it was added or from birth.

SterlingArcher

LLMMLL wrote: »

In most cases it is. In some cases it’s not.

In the cases where it’s not (trans people) then the criteria should not be forced upon them, because it’s not adequate in this case.

A hypothetical.

You were out on a night out. Your sister or female friend gets into an argument with another person. The other person in the argument is a trans woman. There is no mediation working.

Your female friend/sister has not noticed this and gets physical(for arguments sake)with the trans woman.

Do you carry on your suspension of biological reality in this case do as not to offend and knowingly let your friend get into a physical altercation with this other woman.

Or do you say screw that, my friends well being takes priority and tell your friend look, that is a trans woman who realistically still has the physical strength of a man and could possibly do serious damage.

This has been witnessed in sport. Men transition to women. And compete with women fighters. It is not pretty.

PlaneSpeeking

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

You can test if it was added or from birth.

Oh that is true, yes.

But don't ask me - I was told (they always TELL you!!) that I shouldn't say I am a woman. I'm either a "ciswoman" or "assigned female at birth".

Boll**ks to that.

Rory28

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

A penis may not be male or female but it is only ever attached to one of these!

You can be born without one and have one surgically added - still going on a man.

Though a colleague is a plastic surgeon and says it's easier to turn a glove inside out than build a hill, so I suspect a man becoming a woman is easier than the other way around.

Now a bit tongue in cheek but would you consider Bailey Jay to be a man? Penis and all?

Do not google if you are in work

Deusexmachina

To 'identify as' = a corruption of language - meaningless twaddle.

LLMMLL

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

So essentially you would be disputing that the known differences between men and women are not defining features of men and women.

That a penis is neither male nor female.

The reality is that you’re just being awkward and tolerant for the sake of it.

No this is just the typical over application of human made laws to natural phenomena.

So for example, Newton’s laws are obeyed by the vast majority of bodies we encounter in everyday life. Then it was discovered they don’t apply to certain phenomena. How crazy would it be to imply that objects moving close to the speed of light were behaving incorrectly because they didn’t follow the human made law that described them.

In linguistics there was a shift in the 1950s from viewing people who didn’t follow the accepted “rules” of grammar as speaking incorrectly (and consequently being stupid and uneducated) to viewing the rules as inadequate descriptions of the way people speak. Again, the subjective criteria were found to be wrong and our thinking has moved on since then.

A significant number of people who have penises but say they are not Male is enough to make me question that the subjective criteria we use to describe Male/female is lacking.

There’s no awkward attempt to be open minded here.

LLMMLL

SterlingArcher wrote: »

A hypothetical.

You were out on a night out. Your sister or female friend gets into an argument with another person. The other person in the argument is a trans woman. There is no mediation working.

Your female friend/sister has not noticed this and gets physical(for arguments sake)with the trans woman.

Do you carry on your suspension of biological reality in this case do as not to offend and knowingly let your friend get into a physical altercation with this other woman.

Or do you say screw that, my friends well being takes priority and tell your friend look, that is a trans woman who realistically still has the physical strength of a man and could possibly do serious damage.

This has been witnessed in sport. Men transition to women. And compete with women fighters. It is not pretty.

In my imagination (my friends don’t get into scraps) is probably pull my sister away.

Which is what I see most people doing with their friends when they get scrappy. They pull their friend away.

PlaneSpeeking

Rory28 wrote: »

Now a bit tongue in cheek but would you consider Bailey Jay to be a man? Penis and all?

Do not google if you are in work

Googled her - giver her profession I'm assuming all the surgery has been completed ?

Absolutely female then. And a bit of a fox!

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

No this is just the typical over application of human made laws to natural phenomena.

So for example, Newton’s laws are obeyed by the vast majority of bodies we encounter in everyday life. Then it was discovered they don’t apply to certain phenomena. How crazy would it be to imply that objects moving close to the speed of light were behaving incorrectly because they didn’t follow the human made law that described them.

In linguistics there was a shift in the 1950s from viewing people who didn’t follow the accepted “rules” of grammar as speaking incorrectly (and consequently being stupid and uneducated) to viewing the rules as inadequate descriptions of the way people speak. Again, the subjective criteria were found to be wrong and our thinking has moved on since then.

A significant number of people who have penises but say they are not Male is enough to make me question that the subjective criteria we use to describe Male/female is lacking.

There’s no awkward attempt to be open minded here.

Dear lord. Newton’s laws were the best attempt of explaining what we (he) knew based on his repeatable experiments. In hindsight we know the limits of his experiments.

Everything we talk about comes with a certain “as far as we now know”.

I know full well that you can tell the difference between a man and a woman with hgh certainty. Don’t kid us.