Peak Trans

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

1 Susie Greens child was 16 at the time of the surgery in Thailand and in fact capable of making their own decisions.

Sixteen.

For long term, life changing, irreversible decisions. No, I do not agree.

Malayalam

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont know why you referenced hormones when I was talking about surgery. Of course there are some renegade medical practitioners advocating surgery as you reference but these are not widely carried out or agreed with or condoned.

Cross sex hormones after puberty blockers almost invariably render the user sterile. This is chemical sterilisation. One does not always have to go at a body with a scalpel to act irrevocably.

Johanna Olsen-Kennedy is not a renegade medical practitioner - she is one of the leading specialists in childhood gender issues in the US.

I was not specifically refering to Mermaids in my rebuttal - the poster is well able to defend herself - though I did reference mindset. I was arguing against the suggestion you made that NO ONE is advocating surgery for children. They are.

Even as an activist or advocate on behalf of trans kids if that is what you are, and you are very entitled to be such, surely you could admit that the principle of least done soonest mended, or the Hippocratic Oath of primum non nocere - first, do no harm - should be applied above all in these the most vulnerable and immature members of our society.
The prefrontal cortex does not even fully develop until well into the 20s (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051) - to have children far younger than that enabled to make such radical life-changing decisions seems anti-humanist.

(Then again that's aptly enough Foucault, Heiddeger and their ilk's contribution to this post-modern, morally relative quagmire. All of which if you are interested to know can be traced back via Georges Bataille to influences like the Marquis de Sade...this has not come out of nowhere, this denial of the biology, etc etc etc)

EdgeCase

My view of it is that as a society we actually place way, way, way too much stress on gender differences and accentuate them enormously. It shouldn’t really make any difference, in practical and social terms whether you’re male or female, but it still does in many cases.

Hormones also do a lot more than just express your gender attributes. Biology is very efficient and uses systems to do multiple, unconnected things. So, certainly using the technology that is available today, you'll always have side effects and complications from anything that disrupts whatever hormones you have. They're doing a lot more than just causing secondary sexual features. The biggest issues I would be very concerned about would be growth and bone density. You're also potentially rendering someone unable to ever reproduce, if they don't go through puberty as they'll never develop the ability to do that.

I'm not going to attempt to analyse the psychology of being trans as I don't know enough about it or have any experience of it, but I do think that we should have a society that isn't so caught up on gender stereotyping.

We all start out the same and frankly, most of the time, if you strip away the differences in clothing, hair styles and so on, there's a hell of a lot less differences than we tend to think. Even watching some of my own relatives grow up, I'm very aware of the fact that some people still quite actively instil those stereotypes. I was really annoyed for example when someone called my toddler neice a "little tomboy" and told her father to stop her playing football. She loves football and it has nothing to do with her gender or future orientation either. Likewise, I see guys having every "female" attribute bullied out of them - they can't show a softer side, a caring side, be artsy, be flamboyant etc etc ... Many of those things aren't even featured that were always "feminine". Look back in history and you'll find male fashions where guys were the peacock and dressed and acted far more flamboyantly than the modern industrial, grey suited, worker bee fashion forced them into.

My view of it is that both men and women were forced into artificially accentuated roles that kept both in their place. Women were expected to be unambitious homemakers, soft and fluffy and men were expected to be either cannon fodder or industrial robots and have no emotions, as those were likely to reduce their industrial efficiency.

It's noteworthy that upper class men and women conformed to those stereotypes far less than working class and even middle classes. You'd see powerful women doing interesting things (eg many of the first aviation enthusiasts, car racing in the 1920s, huntswomen etc etc) and far more flouncing about men who engaged in arts and cultural activities who came from privileged classes who were able to step outside those norms because they were top of the tree.

I just think there's a lot more going on with gender identity than we think and I also think our societies are far less open-minded than we actually think.

I'm not saying that a small % or people aren't trans. btw, I'm just saying that society takes a rather narrow minded and binary view of gender identity and still insists that you're either take package A or B and have to have all the attributes of A or B and can't have anything in between.

I'd prefer a society where everyone felt comfortable in their own skin. I don't think we are anywhere near that yet. We are going the right direction but we are still only traveling along the journey.

Malayalam

EdgeCase wrote: »

My view of it is that as a society we actually place way, way, way too much stress on gender differences and accentuate them enormously. It shouldn’t really make any difference, in practical and social terms whether you’re male or female, but it still does in many cases.

Hormones also do a lot more than just express your gender attributes. Biology is very efficient and uses systems to do multiple, unconnected things. So, certainly using the technology that is available today, you'll always have side effects and complications from anything that disrupts whatever hormones you have. They're doing a lot more than just causing secondary sexual features. The biggest issues I would be very concerned about would be growth and bone density. You're also potentially rendering someone unable to ever reproduce, if they don't go through puberty as they'll never develop the ability to do that.

I'm not going to attempt to analyse the psychology of being trans as I don't know enough about it or have any experience of it, but I do think that we should have a society that isn't so caught up on gender stereotyping.

We all start out the same and frankly, most of the time, if you strip away the differences in clothing, hair styles and so on, there's a hell of a lot less differences than we tend to think. Even watching some of my own relatives grow up, I'm very aware of the fact that some people still quite actively instil those stereotypes. I was really annoyed for example when someone called my toddler neice a "little tomboy" and told her father to stop her playing football. She loves football and it has nothing to do with her gender or future orientation either. Likewise, I see guys having every "female" attribute bullied out of them - they can't show a softer side, a caring side, be artsy, be flamboyant etc etc ... Many of those things aren't even featured that were always "feminine". Look back in history and you'll find male fashions where guys were the peacock and dressed and acted far more flamboyantly than the modern industrial, grey suited, worker bee fashion forced them into.

My view of it is that both men and women were forced into artificially accentuated roles that kept both in their place. Women were expected to be unambitious homemakers, soft and fluffy and men were expected to be either cannon fodder or industrial robots and have no emotions, as those were likely to reduce their industrial efficiency.

It's norworthy that upper class men and women conformed to those stereotypes far less than working class and even middle classes. You'd see powerful women doing interesting things and far more flouncing about men who engaged in arts and cultural activities who came from privileged classes who were able to step outside those norms because they were top of the tree.

I just think there's a lot more going on with gender identity than we think and I also think our societies are far less open-minded than we actually think.

I'd prefer a society where everyone felt comfortable in their own skin. I don't think we are anywhere near that yet. We are going the right direction but we are still only traveling along the journey.

I agree. A kid who does not feel comfortable in the gender they are born in should in a conscious society be able to live comfortably exactly as they wish to express themselves. Gender stereotypes are enforced for sure. The irony is this transgenderism which denies biological gender is ALL about biological gender. What is it the gender creative child is missing? They want to act like the opposite sex, wear the clothes, have the interests and activities, the life expressions, then go ahead and do exactly that. Live your life! A child does not need to atrophy body parts. As the body changes towards puberty we must be able to sensibly help a child accommodate those changes psychologically rather than chopping off or suppressing the body part. Everyone is learning from birth that life does not always (usually!) go as we wish, and that we have to develop resilience and tolerance. We are not as tall, slim, brilliant, beautiful, multi-limbed, magical, strong as we wish, we cannot sing, fly, run fast - we learn to ACCEPT with fortitude that this is the human condition with its limitations. Then of course if the child reaches adulthood and still feels dysphoria, the science is there to adjust them.

ceadaoin.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

3 The person convicted of hate speech against Susie Green and her family was not convicted solely on the basis of 1 or 2 words as indicated abive. It was concerted harassment, publicly outing Susie Green and her child, inciting transphobic hatred against them on public platforms.

First of all, the person wasn't convicted of hate speech, only interviewed under caution. And no she didn't "out" anybody. How could someone who has said numerous times publicly on tv, social media and even Tedtalks that her son underwent gender surgery at 16 be outed? Also, the child who is now an adult has appeared numerous times on tv and newspapers telling their story. There is nothing to "out". Talk about misrepresenting facts.

It wasn't concerted harrassment, Susie Greens main complaint was that she used the word castrated to refer to the surgery her child underwent. She also accused the charity of child abuse which isn't really untrue is it? Children are not capable of making choices which will affect them for the rest of their lives. Don't forget that a judge previously ruled that they must have no contact with one family after their influence caused severe problems for one child

A taxpayer-funded transgender charity has been banned by the High Court from any contact with a family after the mother, who was being advised by the group, forced her seven-year-old son to live as a girl.

The latest accounts for Mermaids UK, published last week, reveal it has been granted £35,000 by the Department for Education (DfE) and a total of £138,000 by the national lottery’s Awards for All fund and the BBC’s Children in Need appeal.

It can also be revealed that until last week Mermaids was advertising “same day” cross-sex hormone treatment for children. NHS guidelines do not allow the treatment, which causes irreversible bodily changes and can compromise fertility, for anyone under 16.

You can look up the facts if you want or you can provide links to the "transphobic hatred" that this person put out. All her tweets are still there.

Also, I'll ask again, please provide links to the hatred, threats and harrassment of trans people perpetrated by so called terfs which you claimed was rife earlier in the thread.

morebarn2

I know it’s Liveline, and usually a head wreck, but they are discussing this with a trans caller on the radio.

NuMarvel

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Sixteen.

For long term, life changing, irreversible decisions. No, I do not agree.

How can you not agree that it's a fact? This has been the case here in Ireland for over 20 years:

Section 23 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 provides that young people of 16 and over may give valid consent to medical, surgical and dental treatment.

Source: Citizens Information website

jobbridge4life

Why are people so obsessed with transgender issues? I mean we are talking about an almost vanishingly small subset of the population. So small that many of us may go through our lives without ever crossing paths with a trans individual. Yet there is a vocal and angry group of people on Boards, and elsewhere, who are not trans, have no trans relatives, have no reason whatsoever to be bothered, that literally cannot let a day pass without commenting on trans people?

An_Toirpin

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why are people so obsessed with transgender issues? I mean we are talking about an almost vanishingly small subset of the population. So small that many of us may go through our lives without ever crossing paths with a trans individual. Yet there is a vocal and angry group of people on Boards, and elsewhere, who are not trans, have no trans relatives, have no reason whatsoever to be bothered, that literally cannot let a day pass without commenting on trans people?

It is culturally very influential. It is complete science denial so it bothers people.

ohnonotgmail

An_Toirpin wrote: »

It is culturally very influential. It is complete science denial so it bothers people.

LOL.

An_Toirpin

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why are people so obsessed with transgender issues? I mean we are talking about an almost vanishingly small subset of the population. So small that many of us may go through our lives without ever crossing paths with a trans individual. Yet there is a vocal and angry group of people on Boards, and elsewhere, who are not trans, have no trans relatives, have no reason whatsoever to be bothered, that literally cannot let a day pass without commenting on trans people?

Trans is not so much the issue as is intersectionalism which is intellectually toxic.

Calhoun

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why are people so obsessed with transgender issues? I mean we are talking about an almost vanishingly small subset of the population. So small that many of us may go through our lives without ever crossing paths with a trans individual. Yet there is a vocal and angry group of people on Boards, and elsewhere, who are not trans, have no trans relatives, have no reason whatsoever to be bothered, that literally cannot let a day pass without commenting on trans people?

I would say a big part of it has to do what folk are observing happening in other jurisdictions and also how for such a small vanishing population they seem to be trying to inject themselves into the mainstream but also change it at the to suit themselves.

They then want as a small vanishing group to have the right to say how children on a whole are being thought and raised, and fairly innocent things that have come before are wrong.

You also then have the toxic part of the trans side, on this thread alone we have people talking about trans people threatening rape against feminists because they don't recognize them.

This is a good one, illustrating case in point https://medium.com/@transvoicesforrepeal/trans-voices-for-repeal-call-on-the-together-for-yes-campaign-to-formally-apologise-to-trans-people-84931f0fa85d

Wibbs

Calhoun wrote: »

This is a good one, illustrating case in point https://medium.com/@transvoicesforrepeal/trans-voices-for-repeal-call-on-the-together-for-yes-campaign-to-formally-apologise-to-trans-people-84931f0fa85d

They get thoroughly lambasted in the comments at the bottom. Rightfully. So most people see the nutters for what they are, even if they have an overall genuine sympathy for transexuals.

Calhoun

Wibbs wrote: »

They get thoroughly lambasted in the comments at the bottom. Rightfully. So most people see the nutters for what they are, even if they have an overall genuine sympathy for transexuals.

Look at the claps though, even though they are getting lambasted they are also getting claps from trans folk.

hatrickpatrick

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why are people so obsessed with transgender issues? I mean we are talking about an almost vanishingly small subset of the population. So small that many of us may go through our lives without ever crossing paths with a trans individual. Yet there is a vocal and angry group of people on Boards, and elsewhere, who are not trans, have no trans relatives, have no reason whatsoever to be bothered, that literally cannot let a day pass without commenting on trans people?

Because a minority of radical leftists are trying to literally redefine language to be totally counter-intuitive and essentially unusable to actually define the world we live in.

I refer again to this graphic:



It's this kind of crap which is driving the debate. There's a very vocal minority of idiots out there who, for instance, actually suggest that people don't have the right to consent to sex or not based on the biological sex of their prospective partner, and that they're somehow bad people if they choose to do so. They're a minority, but they're trying to redefine how society talks about human biology in such a way as to limit peoples' freedom of choice.

wexie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I generally try to be respectful of other people and to live my life in such a way that I have as little negative and as much positive impact on people as I can....

But I genuinely don't know how I would respond in a respectful way to someone telling me that I would just have to accept these particular frank'n'beans cause they're a woman's frank'n'beans and that not doing so makes me transphobic.

That's entirely too much crazy for me to be able to deal with.

_Whimsical_

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why are people so obsessed with transgender issues? I mean we are talking about an almost vanishingly small subset of the population. So small that many of us may go through our lives without ever crossing paths with a trans individual. Yet there is a vocal and angry group of people on Boards, and elsewhere, who are not trans, have no trans relatives, have no reason whatsoever to be bothered, that literally cannot let a day pass without commenting on trans people?

Because we are not talking about the tiny subsection of the population who are trans individuals, the vast majority of us wish them no harm at all and hope for their right to live peacefully and happily.

Most people talking about it are concerned about the mounting cultural framework developing to foster an ideology that undermines the biology and experience of 99% of the world's population and lays the groundwork both legally and medically to have us abandon our concept of ourselves as male or female and for small children to have their normal developmental experience perverted into something that can derail every aspect of their lives.

It's slowly eroding our right to be women and men, for example a recent public health campaign encouraging women to go for smear testing in the UK was targetted as "inviting any person with a cervix" to attend clinics so as not to be prejudiced. It's reported in the Irish Times that there is presently some concern in Ireland that our abortion legislation which refers to the pregnant woman might be considered to be isolating the trans community due to its use of the word "woman".

We aren't talking about something that only affects a tiny minority here, this affects all of us, our right to acknowledge the facts of our biology, the right to live somewhere that a small child can play lego one minute and ballerina next without being labeled or finding themselves on hormones.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The issue of compelled speech is also a factor.

This is what the likes of Jordan Peterson speaks out about.

Where laws are enacted to coerce people to use certain words. The 70 odd gender pronouns in this case.

This has even spread to the likes of NYC where massive fines can be imposed.

Where does this type of thing end? It's a dangerous rabbit hole to go down.

Lil Sally Anne Jnr.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why are people so obsessed with transgender issues?

Because the wider conversation involves a discernible agenda which includes the diminution of childhood and it's violation by adult sexuality and commercialism. When this agenda is eulogized on mainstream platforms like TED, morning television, or popular documentaries, I think you can easily understand why people kick back.

Also, as evidenced in this thread, many people confuse Trans rights with Feminism, and they are very different things. Feminism, for better or worse, is a resistance movement with many things in common with the wider socialist resistance. The mainstream Trans movement so far as it exists on social media at least, is in essence, socially conservative.

As a side note, at a social event recently I randomly met one of the most bigoted, hostile, self righteous and unpleasant people I've ever met. This person was Trans. I know it wasn't anything I said because I couldn't get a word in edge ways. Obviously this person is not representative of Trans people, but don't make the mistake that I did of thinking that these toxic people and ideas only exist on American college campuses.

Live and let live by all means, but there needs to be a deep and careful discussion of how we want our children educated and raised.

Star Bingo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkPALneB_k4

uck51js9zml2yt

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because a minority of radical leftists are trying to literally redefine language to be totally counter-intuitive and essentially unusable to actually define the world we live in.

I refer again to this graphic:



It's this kind of crap which is driving the debate. There's a very vocal minority of idiots out there who, for instance, actually suggest that people don't have the right to consent to sex or not based on the biological sex of their prospective partner, and that they're somehow bad people if they choose to do so. They're a minority, but they're trying to redefine how society talks about human biology in such a way as to limit peoples' freedom of choice.

Why did you make me read that snippet? It's nuts! Do we have enough psychiatric hospitals for people who deny reality or is this just another example of care in the community?

TheValeyard

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because a minority of radical leftists are trying to literally redefine language to be totally counter-intuitive and essentially unusable to actually define the world we live in.

I refer again to this graphic:



It's this kind of crap which is driving the debate. There's a very vocal minority of idiots out there who, for instance, actually suggest that people don't have the right to consent to sex or not based on the biological sex of their prospective partner, and that they're somehow bad people if they choose to do so. They're a minority, but they're trying to redefine how society talks about human biology in such a way as to limit peoples' freedom of choice.

Dyr

EdgeCase wrote: »

My view of it is that as a society we actually place way, way, way too much stress on gender differences

In comparison to what?

Can I identify as being thin and then sue penneys for making me feel bad that they force me to be in a large?

Nermal

I note the IT today with a glowing profile of a doctor who performs gender 'affirmation' surgery...

Calhoun

Anyone remember this from last year https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/13/pc-criticised-warning-feminine-care-supermarket-signs-sexist/

DEFTLEFTHAND

Calhoun wrote: »

Anyone remember this from last year https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/13/pc-criticised-warning-feminine-care-supermarket-signs-sexist/

Big corporations tend to cave in immediately when such ridiculous issues arise.

They might be better served in the long run by drawing a line in the sand and saying the word no more often.

suicide_circus

the only time gender is strictly binary is when it's a transgender person who is definitely 100% born in the wrong body.

Calhoun

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Big corporations tend to cave in immediately when such ridiculous issues arise.

They might be better served in the long run by drawing a line in the sand and saying the word no more often.

Indeed but it just shows why people are so concerned about the small minority so to speak.

BattleCorp

EdgeCase wrote: »

It's noteworthy that upper class men and women conformed to those stereotypes far less than working class and even middle classes. You'd see powerful women doing interesting things (eg many of the first aviation enthusiasts, car racing in the 1920s, huntswomen etc etc) and far more flouncing about men who engaged in arts and cultural activities who came from privileged classes who were able to step outside those norms because they were top of the tree.

Money is the reason for what you are talking about above. You need financial clout to go 'flouncing about'.

Most poor women in the 1920's were more interested in how they could feed themselves and their family than car racing. Same for poor men.

The Bishop Basher

EdgeCase wrote: »

My view of it is that as a society we actually place way, way, way too much stress on gender differences and accentuate them enormously. It shouldn’t really make any difference, in practical and social terms whether you’re male or female, but it still does in many cases.

Why ?

I don't understand this drive to make us all the same. Why can't we celebrate gender differences instead of pretending they don't exist. Why does the biological fact that we're fundamentally different, have to be a problem, especially given that we complement each other in so many ways.

Why can't we just be what we are

EdgeCase wrote: »

I'd prefer a society where everyone felt comfortable in their own skin. I don't think we are anywhere near that yet. We are going the right direction but we are still only traveling along the journey.

Are we ?

I think it's safe to say that most of us want a world where everyone feels comfortable in their own skin but that's neither realistic nor possible for such a "vanishingly tiny subset of the population" especially when they demand so much change to societal norms from the other 99.5%.

And I'm not sure what you envisage the end point of this journey to look like but it can't involve the kind of nonsense being forced down our throats at the moment because it is just that, utter nonsense much of the time and it's impinging on our rights to bring up our own children as we see fit. That won't wash with the 99.5%.

Lil Sally Anne Jnr. wrote: »

but there needs to be a deep and careful discussion of how we want our children educated and raised.

Again, why ?

These all sound like great soundbites to keep the SJW's happy but I don't see any reason to discuss how we want to educate and raise our children when the vast vast majority of us are quite happy with the way we currently raise and educate our children.

Calhoun

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.

The Rape of Lucretia

Calhoun wrote: »

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

She has withdrawn at least.

Some industries are less scrupulous. I was at a performance of Don Giovanni last year and there was an oriental man playing the role of Don Ottavio. While the show went ahead, needless to say, everyone was outraged. The applause for him at the end was, shall we say, 'polite', verging on muted even though his voice was perfectly satisfactory. But it's set in fourteenth century Spain fss. It isnt as if there arent enough European opera singers perfectly capable of playing the role. How they got away with such brazen discrimination against caucasian singers in favour of that guy, I dont know.

pjohnson

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.

Johanson would have attracted people to the movie so that ya know people would learn about the issues or whatever, but instead go for an unknown to ensure no one watches it :pac:

Dyr

Gender is an arbitrary construct which can chang...Whooa bitch!! You can't play a man!!

It's pretty surreal, these people are like a liberal version of the taliban

Calhoun

Bambi wrote: »

Gender is an arbitrary construct which can chang...Whooa bitch!! You can't play a man!!

It's pretty surreal, these people are like a liberal version of the taliban

Some sort of LGBT cultural appropriation going on from Scarlet, how dare she apply for a role and get it :P.

Its absolutely crazy the double standards.

BattleCorp

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.

She should have told them all to 'fcuk off'. This kind of bolloxology isn't doing trans people any favours.

Calhoun

BattleCorp wrote: »

She should have told them all to 'fcuk off'. This kind of bolloxology isn't doing trans people any favours.

She did but they reacted even worse.

BattleCorp

Calhoun wrote: »

She did but they reacted even worse.

Then she should have stuck to her guns.

Calhoun

BattleCorp wrote: »

Then she should have stuck to her guns.

You and I both know in the current state of America she had to drop it, or it could have impacted her career long term.

The small vanishing minority as another poster put it are very vengeful.

ceadaoin.

The singer Alison Moyet has been hounded off Twitter after receiving tons of abuse for daring to call herself a woman, rather than a "cis woman". Strangely enough, I've yet to see a man abused and criticised for referring to themselves as a man, or saying that they they prefer their sexual partners to be whatever biological sex. The vitriol and shaming is only ever aimed at women. Such progress. How can anyone defend this nonsense?

You can identify as anything you want these days, except as a woman. Consider what happened to British singer Alison Moyet. Last week, on Twitter, she said she didn’t want to be known as a cis-woman, just as a woman. ‘I defend everyone’s right to have the pronoun that they choose and will honour it’, she diplomatically said. And ‘I do not choose Cis for mine’, she continued. ‘It took women like me long enough to own the title “woman” in the first place. It’s a long enough word for me.’ The response to this calm, clear, polite act of self-definition? Fury. And insult. And abuse. On such a voluble level that Moyet eventually recanted her linguistic heresy, deleted her tweet, and left Twitter.

What happened to Moyet for her rejection of the cis tag is a depressing sign of the times. She was mocked, ridiculed, accused of stoking hatred of trans people. She was bombarded with stern, abusive tweets.

http://spiked-online.com/newsite/article/trans-activism-is-now-just-misogyny-in-drag#.W0zFZGhlA0N

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote:

The singer Alison Moyet has been hounded off Twitter after receiving tons of abuse for daring to call herself a woman, rather than a "cis woman". Strangely enough, I've yet to see a man abused and criticised for referring to themselves as a man, or saying that they they prefer their sexual partners to be whatever biological sex. The vitriol and shaming is only ever aimed at women. Such progress. How can anyone defend this nonsense?

Are you suggesting that men aren't attacked for being a man?

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you suggesting that men aren't attacked for being a man?

No. I'm not sure how you got that from my post?

I'm saying that men are never abused and hounded by these extreme trans rights activists if they refer to themselves as a "man" or refer to their biology (women have been attacked for referring to their reproductive systems, Ariana grande being the latest) or if they say that they would not be attracted to a trans person . Or at least, I've yet to see it.

Omackeral

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The singer Alison Moyet has been hounded off Twitter after receiving tons of abuse for daring to call herself a woman, rather than a "cis woman".

I'm a man. Not a cis man. I was born male. I wasn't assigned anything at birth except for my name. Anyone who has a problem with that or takes offense to it can, quite simply, fcuk right off.

pc7

Sorry what’s a cis man or woman? Googled it and saying what your identity is at birth. So in old money as a woman am I now a cis woman in new?

pc7

pc7 wrote:

Sorry what’s a cis man or woman? Googled it and saying what your identity is at birth. So in old money as a woman am I now a cis woman in new?

Someone who was born with the genitals of the body they identify with. In other words, a man or a woman. Bizarre

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote:

No. I'm not sure how you got that from my post?

Apologies. Must have misread

KrustyUCC

pc7 wrote: »

Sorry what’s a cis man or woman? Googled it and saying what your identity is at birth. So in old money as a woman am I now a cis woman in new?

Yeah exactly

a cis woman is a woman who identifies as female and was assigned a female sex at birth

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/6227596/cis-cisgender-woman-man-meaning-transgender/

Omackeral

pc7 wrote: »

Sorry what’s a cis man or woman? Googled it and saying what your identity is at birth. So in old money as a woman am I now a cis woman in new?

Yep that's it. If you don't use it, you're transphobic according to the lunatic fringes.

ceadaoin.

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Yeah exactly

a cis woman is a woman who identifies as female and was assigned a female sex at birth

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/6227596/cis-cisgender-woman-man-meaning-transgender/

Except in the vast vast majority of people, sex isn't "assigned", its observed and noted.