J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

lozenges

Logically, if biological sex doesn't exist, then there's no need for transition at all. If there is no such thing as male and female then there should be no need for hormones, surgery etc, because male and female hormones aren't a thing. No?

Also, how do you refer to the state a trans person was in prior to their transition?

I have no problem with people changing their gender. And people should be treated as the gender they choose to present as (with very few exceptions, such as prisons etc which have been outlined above). But that is not the same as changing biological sex, or mean that biological sex doesn't exist.

Sir Oxman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Would you like to engage with any of the cogent points that have been put forth or offer some yourself? I always hear about supposed hatred in these dialogues but the hyperbole only ever seems to come from one side. Almost like there is a lack of substance there and the gap must be filled somehow.

Remeber the central tenet of this ideology:
'No debate' :rolleyes:



Handy, isn't it?

Sir Oxman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I know, right? When did good old debate go out of fashion? I've said this before but my father voted No in the Eighth Amendment referendum whilst I voted Yes. In the lead up, we had a few debates about it that never got heated, because we're grown ups. I didn't call him a woman-hater, he didn't call me a murder-advocate. It's almost like we were both pretty sensible people who had thought about things and were confident in our positions. In my view, if you're sure of yourself and your stance, there's no need for hyperbole and dramatics.

Snap.
Best friend voted no, I voted yes - we talked, debated and we remain best friends with no voices raised.
He was relieved to be able to voice his opinion without being shouted down.
Both extremes need deleting.

Silentcorner

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Snap.
Best friend voted no, I voted yes - we talked, debated and we remain best friends with no voices raised.
He was relieved to be able to voice his opinion without being shouted down.
Both extremes need deleting.

We need to pull the plug on twitter.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

lozenges wrote: »

Logically, if biological sex doesn't exist, then there's no need for transition at all. If there is no such thing as male and female then there should be no need for hormones, surgery etc, because male and female hormones aren't a thing. No?

Also, how do you refer to the state a trans person was in prior to their transition?

I have no problem with people changing their gender. And people should be treated as the gender they choose to present as (with very few exceptions, such as prisons etc which have been outlined above). But that is not the same as changing biological sex, or mean that biological sex doesn't exist.

No one is denying biological sex, especially transgender people, who believe in it so much they often reinforce it.

But hormones are taken for a whole host of things other than transitioning. Do you want to bar all hormone therapy?

I’m not trans so I let a trans person guide me on how they would like their transition referenced. You know many people chose to refer to their stories differently. Life is not a one size fits all.

I respect you have no problem with people changing gender or presenting how they want to identify.

I don’t have time to scroll back to see what exception you make about prisons but trans people are vulnerable in prisons

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-34869620

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/man-sentenced-death-killing-transgender-cellmate-n1097161

Studies have found that trans people should be detained with people they identify with not based on genitalia.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/20956491/treatment-transgender-prisoners-not-just-american-problem-comparative-analysis-american-australian-canadian-prison-policies-concerning-treatment-transgender-prisoners-a-universal-recommendation-improve

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

No one is denying biological sex, especially transgender people, who believe in it so much they often reinforce it.

But hormones are taken for a whole host of things other than transitioning. Do you want to bar all hormone therapy?

I’m not trans so I let a trans person guide me on how they would like their transition referenced. You know many people chose to refer to their stories differently. Life is not a one size fits all.

I respect you have no problem with people changing gender or presenting how they want to identify.

I don’t have time to scroll back to see what exception you make about prisons but trans people are vulnerable in prisons

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-34869620

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/man-sentenced-death-killing-transgender-cellmate-n1097161

Studies have found that trans people should be detained with people they identify with not based on genitalia.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/20956491/treatment-transgender-prisoners-not-just-american-problem-comparative-analysis-american-australian-canadian-prison-policies-concerning-treatment-transgender-prisoners-a-universal-recommendation-improve

Do you believe that trans-woman are woman, as in, a trans-woman is an "adult human female"?

mohawk

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Heterosexuality is built around penetration because of its obsession with reproduction.

Is this a serious point. Have you ever heard of contraception? Many women fought this state in order for contraception to be made legal in this country. You know so we could have sex and not reproduce. This wasn’t 100 years ago either.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Do you believe that trans-woman are woman, as in, a trans-woman is an "adult human female"?

Do I believe a trans woman is

Adult? Over 18 yes
Human? Of course
Female? Yes

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

mohawk wrote: »

Is this a serious point. Have you ever heard of contraception? Many women fought this state in order for contraception to be made legal in this country. You know so we could have sex and not reproduce. This wasn’t 100 years ago either.

Yes I don’t know what it has to do with contraception. Also many men fought for contraception especially allies within the LGBTQI+ community. I don’t forget their solidarity once I climb the ladder.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Do I believe a trans woman is

Adult? Over 18 yes
Human? Of course
Female? Yes

Well then you are denying biological sex, because they are not. A trans-woman is a biological male, and as such, not a female.

mohawk

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Yes I don’t know what it has to do with contraception. Also many men fought for contraception especially allies within the LGBTQI+ community. I don’t forget their solidarity once I climb the ladder.

You mentioned about obsession with reproduction. I merely pointed out that heterosexual sex can’t be that obsessed with reproduction when people worked so hard so that sex without reproduction could be possible.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Well then you are denying biological sex, because they are not. A trans-woman is a biological male, and as such, not a female.

The definition of female is so narrow as to exclude women who can’t produce offspring or bear eggs.

Do you think women that cannot do these things are not women?

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

The definition of female is so narrow as to exclude women who can’t produce offspring or bear eggs.

Do you think women that cannot do these things are not women?

No it's not:

"a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman".

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/female

jam_mac_jam

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

The definition of female is so narrow as to exclude women who can’t produce offspring or bear eggs.

Do you think women that cannot do these things are not women?

That point has been explained about 17 times on this thread. All humans who carry babies are women. Not all women carry babies.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No it's not:

"a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman".

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/female

I know many a hairy faced woman, you’ll note the retaining which relates to a repeated series of acts, like shaving and waxing, which is performing femininity.

And I know many a straight man with a set of moobs finer than anything Katie Price bought.

Do you know that parts of machinery, fittings, for example that are manufactured hollow are labelled female and the corresponding penetrating part called male?

deaddonkey15

lozenges wrote: »

Logically, if biological sex doesn't exist, then there's no need for transition at all. If there is no such thing as male and female then there should be no need for hormones, surgery etc, because male and female hormones aren't a thing. No?

Also, how do you refer to the state a trans person was in prior to their transition?

I have no problem with people changing their gender. And people should be treated as the gender they choose to present as (with very few exceptions, such as prisons etc which have been outlined above). But that is not the same as changing biological sex, or mean that biological sex doesn't exist.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. The arguments put forward by extreme trans activists just collapse in on themselves once any logical thought is applied.

Sir Oxman

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

The definition of female is so narrow as to exclude women who can’t produce offspring or bear eggs.

Do you think women that cannot do these things are not women?

And here it is.
The fallacy of intersectionality & ideology.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Sir Oxman wrote: »

And here it is.
The fallacy of intersectionality & ideology.

If it’s such a fallacy then it’ll be easy for you to answer the question.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I know many a hairy faced woman, you’ll note the retaining which relates to a repeated series of acts, like shaving and waxing, which is performing femininity.

And? Do they have ovaries, a vagina, XX chromosomes etc. Then they are women. One does not have to hit literally everything in the definition, the problem is one who hits none of them, they are not female. They are male (or intersex;) )

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Do you know that parts of machinery, fittings, for example that are manufactured hollow are labelled female and the corresponding penetrating part called male?

Yes, what is the relevancy of this?

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And? Do they have ovaries, a vagina, XX chromosomes etc. Then they are women. One does not have to hit literally everything in the definition, the problem is one who hits none of them, they are not female. They are male (or intersex;) )


Yes, what is the relevancy of this?

I don’t go around asking women what’s inside their underwear. Do you?

The relevancy is your using one definition of female to validate your argument when the definition is broader and ultimately very disparaging to women in its entirety.

da_miser

Reading up on this the last few days has been a eye opener.
If i understand this correctly MtF transexuals are women, they have female penis.
Straight men and Lesbians who do not wont to date MtF transexuals, do not actually have a preference for women, they have a vagina fetish.
If they where sexually attracted to Women then they would have no issue dating a MtF transexual as they are Women with a female penis.
Straight men and Lesbians actually do not really like women, but have a Vagina fetish.
I am open to be corrected.

da_miser

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

You’ve hit the nail on the head. The arguments put forward by extreme trans activists just collapse in on themselves once any logical thought is applied.

Like all arguments put forward by the far left.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Goodnight all. I’ve found a movie now which is going to be more entertaining than the body police on here.

I’ll leave you on this thought.

Now that the body police have moved on from policing gay bodies, poc bodies, women’s bodies to trans bodies, what’s next?

How will you feel superior when you run out of bodies to police?

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I don’t go around asking women what’s inside their underwear. Do you?

The relevancy is your using one definition of female to validate your argument when the definition is broader and ultimately very disparaging to women in its entirety.

Your question is a non-sequitur. Just because one has a hairy face does not preclude one from being a women. But not having XX-chromosomes, a vagina, ovaries etc. does.

This is the point.

Or I'll put it another way:

a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man.

is not female. As such, Trans-woman who are biological males are not females and as such not woman. They are trans-woman.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Goodnight all. I’ve found a movie now which is going to be more entertaining than the body police on here.

I’ll leave you on this thought.

Now that the body police have moved on from policing gay bodies, poc bodies, women’s bodies to trans bodies, what’s next?

How will you feel superior when you run out of bodies to police?

Body police? If pointing about biological reality makes you part of the 'body police' then so be it.

WashYourHands

A hand has 5 fingers (The digits include a medial thumb, containing two phalanges, and four fingers, each containing three phalanges. - according to Britannica). A person could be born with 6 fingers. Is that not a hand?

A woman who can't produce offspring is still a woman.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Your question is a non-sequitur. Just because one has a hairy face does not preclude one from being a women. But not having XX-chromosomes, a vagina, ovaries etc. does.

This is the point.

Or I'll put it another way:



is not female. As such, Trans-woman who are biological males are not females and as such not woman. They are trans-woman.

Indulge me with your views on biological homology for some light reading later before bed.

mohawk

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

The definition of female is so narrow as to exclude women who can’t produce offspring or bear eggs.

Do you think women that cannot do these things are not women?

A woman who is infertile is still a woman. An infertile woman doesn’t produce sperm in a testis. She has two XX chromosomes and will be more susceptible to certain diseases because she is female. Eg both males and females can get breast cancer but majority of cases are female. A males is more likely to suffer with heart disease and at a younger age then females.

Heart attack symptoms are different between males and females. Pain perception differs between males and females. Response to drugs can differ between males and females. This is why the distinction between male and female is important.

In everyday life should transgender be included in equality legislation to ensure equality in healthcare, housing, education, employment etc yes of course they should. If someone assaults a transgender person because they are transgender then yes that’s a hate crime and should be treated as such.

lozenges

WashYourHands wrote: »

A hand has 5 fingers (The digits include a medial thumb, containing two phalanges, and four fingers, each containing three phalanges. - according to Britannica). A person could be born with 6 fingers. Is that not a hand?

A woman who can't produce offspring is still a woman.

None of the definitions of female that have been offered so far relate to production of offspring. They do refer to the internal genitalia and karyotype which are a minimum requirement for bearing offspring, but not a guarantee of it. Not least if contraception is employed to actively prevent it.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Indulge me with your views on biological homology for some light reading later before bed.

I just have, though I recommend an actual book. Looking at blue light before going to sleep makes you sleep poorly. Alas, at least you'll learn what biological sex is.

Enjoy your film!