Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Smith152

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not tying myself up in knots at all. Women aren’t being denied medals, they have the same opportunities to compete for medals as they always had, they never had the right to determine who else could or couldn’t also compete against them, in spite of accusations of doping against other athletes by American athletes when they didn’t win medals.

Women are being denied medals in various sports because men have self identified as women and beat them out of medals.

Up until self identification was a thing women did have the right to determine who they were competing against as by competing in a women sport they only competed against women, now that isn't the case.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The ongoing discrimination is that people who are transgender are often discriminated against on the basis that they are transgender and do not fit neatly into boxes that are labelled for the sex they identify with rather than the sex that has been determined for them at birth.

Women have to accept it because they are part of a democratic society where everyone is entitled to equal treatment based upon the law acknowledging that everyone in that society is entitled to equal treatment based upon the idea of valuing human dignity and respect.

They are labelled for the sex they were born with because that is the sex they were born with. You cannot change your sex. This is a view you even agree with, so I don't see your point.

Although at least you aren't a moral coward and can say that you believe that it's up to women to just accept it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why do you say of course they will be taken seriously when you yourself don’t take them seriously? Anyone can say they aren’t transgender, it’s up to the person who claims they are transgender to provide supporting evidence for their claims. It’s not as though their claims will be taken seriously without supporting evidence. Where’s the problem, other than one which is implied by tabloid rags sensationalising the whole thing for clickbait revenue to fuel moral panic in society of people who are transgender?

Jack, c'mon, we both know the trans lobby will be all over it. They are being 'denied their existence', it's 'transphobic' to say they aren't. And anyway, the whole point of self id is that you don't have to prove it.

I'd have no problem allowing people to self declare, and have legal documents changed, as long as this recognition does not extend to being allowed in women's prisons, having access to women's changing rooms, or women's shelters etc. unless that person goes through a full transition. That to me is the best compromise.

Unfortunately, sports are just a know go in general for me.

Smith152

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So what? I’m not responsible for claims someone else makes!

But you're defending their right to make such claims and therefore emboldening this nonsensical ideology of allowing self identification.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That's not paraphrasing - that is completely twisting to suit your agenda.

I said to another poster "your views are those of a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), but you are not a feminist." - she herself said she wasn't a feminist.
And indeed - her expressed views were the same as TERFs, doesn't follow she is one, what with not being a feminist never mind a radical one.

Right so, we’ve established that not everyone with gender critical views is a feminist. Perhaps stop mouthfarting such a bovine term then?

Gruffalox wrote: »

So you too will have to come up with a different slur for me since you cannot argue the grounds and instead make emotional appeals and resort to extrapolating from personal anecdote while disallowing others anecdotal experience

Ha ha, yes indeed.

joeguevara

The concept of people having a human right to choose where they go to prison is really a case of over engineering a situation to see the worst. For instance, a murderer who gets life in Mountjoy, can’t simply say no I want to go to Shelton Abbey with huge lawns and roaming peacocks.

Similarly if a violent woman with a predication of violence and s3xual assault against other women, once she is put into protected solitary, she can’t say no I want to share the apartment in Dochas With Linda and Charlotte. They risk assess each prisoner to determine best place.

Now after the transgender sexually assaulted a number of female prisoners I doubt too many will be housed in one.

Annasopra

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Who said anything about forced sterilisation/genital rearrangement? They can have the surgery if they want, no-one is forcing them to.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Joey:

What do you propose exactly? Or is it a case of women just having to suck it up?

You are proposing forced surgery.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Smith152 wrote: »

1 in 50 male prisoners in the UK are now claiming to be women. There's a reason for this and it's nothing to do them actually being transgender.

And if all of that 1 in 50 were moved to the women’s estate, the women’s prison population would increase by 50%. That’s quite the skewing of stats.

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are proposing forced surgery.

No I am not. You are wrong. As usual. Still haven't answered my questions. As usual. Interacting with you is such a waste of time as you are not interested in having a legitimate discussion. I won't even bother asking the questions again as you won't answer.

Quantum Erasure

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Reddit has banned the gender critical subreddit

“GoOd RiDdAnCE, iT wAs FiLLeD WiTh hAtE sPeEcH”.

Or something.

just seen they've banned The_Donald subreddit aswell, the main one for Trump supporters, had been hidden from the main page for a while

Annasopra

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No I am not. You are wrong. As usual. Still haven't answered my questions. As usual. Interacting with you is such a waste of time as you are not interested in having a legitimate discussion. I won't even bother asking the questions again as you won't answer.

You have suggested that if a person wants a Gender Recognition Cert they can only do so by fully transitioning. That is forced surgery.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I presume you are referring to personality traits or interests when you talk about people fitting neatly into the boxes that are labelled for their sex? Surely people should be breaking down gender based stereotypes rather than assuming that interests/personality traits are sex specific.

My own views would be much broader than personality traits or interests tbh which I would associate more strongly with expression and manifestation as opposed to internal physiology. For example there’s no way to determine a persons sex at birth from fMRI scans, but we are aware that sex hormones have an influence on brain development.

Me personally I can’t be arsed “breaking down gender stereotypes”, but if other people choose to take that responsibility on themselves, more power to them. Apart from the fact that I’m notoriously sexist and far too conservative for that sort of new fangled nonsense, I simply have no interest in it.

I know that children’s development is also influenced by their environment as much as their genetics, but I just can’t bring myself to be bothered to explain myself to people when they raise an eyebrow at the fact that I like nothing better of an evening than winding down with a ball of wool and a pair of knitting needles. I accept that it’s an unusual hobby for anyone really in modern times, but I don’t try to push it on anyone who isn’t interested. It’s just something I enjoy that I was taught by my mother and I never gave it much thought other than that. My own son gives me an awful time for it because he thinks it’s weird, but that’s only because it’s unfamiliar to him.

I could show him this video if I was honestly arsed, but I’m not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-Lri1rYfqk

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You have suggested that if a person wants a Gender Recognition Cert they can only do so by fully transitioning. That is forced surgery.

It is not forced surgery. I have also stated:

I'd have no problem allowing people to self declare, and have legal documents changed, as long as this recognition does not extend to being allowed in women's prisons, having access to women's changing rooms, or women's shelters etc. unless that person goes through a full transition. That to me is the best compromise.

But sure this won't be good enough for you either. Women just have to put up or shut up. Otherwise they are transphobes or TERFS. One can't even have the discussion without the words being routinely thrown around.

One eyed Jack

Smith152 wrote: »

But you're defending their right to make such claims and therefore emboldening this nonsensical ideology of allowing self identification.

I’ll defend anyone’s right to freedom of expression. That doesn’t mean I share their opinions.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

To those of you tripping over yourself to call people concerned about the erosion of sex-based not only transphobes but also homophobes, what are your thoughts on this excerpt from a BBC article from the weekend? I believe it’s been edited out but the internet is forever. And the following was not the BBC quoting somebody, it was their own writing.

Discrimination also extends to transphobic preferences in the dating world: from cisgender gay men not wanting to date trans men

Get that: a mainstream publication called it both discriminatory AND transphobic for a gay man to not want to date or sleep with a transgender man.

Not only is that homophobic but also creepy. Yes, dating and sexual relations are by their very nature discriminatory. That’s how it works. The only justification anyone has to give for not sleeping with or dating somebody is “I don’t want to”. Nobody is entitled to a further explanation.

And people who support this shit have the temerity to call other people homophobic? The brass necks on them.

AndrewJRenko

Smith152 wrote: »

Why wouldn't someone like Larry Murphy use self id if it was available to him. An unusually high number of male prisoners in the UK are self identifying as women now.

Why wouldn't a struggling male golfer or tennis player use self id and go from earning nothing to being a millionaire overnight.

A lot of human beings are incredible cynical and if they see an opportunity to benefit themselves then there's a good chance any person would take advantage of it.

Self ID is available to Larry, and has been available to him and everyone else for four or five years now in Ireland.

We've had no disasters in prisons. In fact, Irish prisons had zero Covid cases, a huge achievement in very crowded circumstances.

We've had no disasters in sports. We've had no disasters in changing rooms or swimming pools.

Do you think maybe somebody are using this just to further their anti-trans agenda?

Smith152 wrote: »

If self ID is allowed then surely it's against their human rights to be denied transfer to a women's prison when they have self identified as women.

How about we leave the detailed management of prisons to the prison service? They're pretty good at it.

Poor oul JK thought she had an anti-trans ally in Stephen King over the weekend, but got a nasty shock.

https://twitter.com/notallbhas/status/1277370116188057605

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Self ID is available to Larry, and has been available to him and everyone else for four or five years now in Ireland.

We've had no disasters in prisons. In fact, Irish prisons had zero Covid cases, a huge achievement in very crowded circumstances.

We've had no disasters in sports. We've had no disasters in changing rooms or swimming pools.

Do you think maybe somebody are using this just to further their anti-trans agenda?

We have had all those things, just not in Ireland... yet.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My own views would be much broader than personality traits or interests tbh which I would associate more strongly with expression and manifestation as opposed to internal physiology. For example there’s no way to determine a persons sex at birth from fMRI scans, but we are aware that sex hormones have an influence on brain development.

Me personally I can’t be arsed “breaking down gender stereotypes”, but if other people choose to take that responsibility on themselves, more power to them. Apart from the fact that I’m notoriously sexist and far too conservative for that sort of new fangled nonsense, I simply have no interest in it.

I know that children’s development is also influenced by their environment as much as their genetics, but I just can’t bring myself to be bothered to explain myself to people when they raise an eyebrow at the fact that I like nothing better of an evening than winding down with a ball of wool and a pair of knitting needles. I accept that it’s an unusual hobby for anyone really in modern times, but I don’t try to push it on anyone who isn’t interested. It’s just something I enjoy that I was taught by my mother and I never gave it much thought other than that. My own son gives me an awful time for it because he thinks it’s weird, but that’s only because it’s unfamiliar to him.

I could show him this video if I was honestly arsed, but I’m not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-Lri1rYfqk

Well what do you mean when you talk of boxes then?

Smith152

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You have suggested that if a person wants a Gender Recognition Cert they can only do so by fully transitioning. That is forced surgery.

You shouldn't be able to claim you are another gender until you've gone through the surgery. Don't want to go through the surgery then you don't really need to change your gender on any documentation, that is the way it should be.

Smith152

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

We've had no disasters in sports.

Wrong, numerous women have lost out of scholarships and medals in different sports around the world due to men who claim to be women.

Smith152

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll defend anyone’s right to freedom of expression. That doesn’t mean I share their opinions.

Self identification is not merely freedom of expression though.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

They are labelled for the sex they were born with because that is the sex they were born with. You cannot change your sex. This is a view you even agree with, so I don't see your point.

Although at least you aren't a moral coward and can say that you believe that it's up to women to just accept it.

It’s true, one absolutely can not change their sex. I’ve never argued otherwise. What I have argued, is that we simply lack the tools to be able to determine with any degree of specificity a persons sex. Most of the time it’s simply nothing more than a best guess on the basis that their balls have dropped, otherwise they’re a girl.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Jack, c'mon, we both know the trans lobby will be all over it. They are being 'denied their existence', it's 'transphobic' to say they aren't. And anyway, the whole point of self id is that you don't have to prove it.

I'd have no problem allowing people to self declare, and have legal documents changed, as long as this recognition does not extend to being allowed in women's prisons, having access to women's changing rooms, or women's shelters etc. unless that person goes through a full transition. That to me is the best compromise.

Unfortunately, sports are just a know go in general for me.

Yeah, and your compromise is simply unsatisfactory, hence why people express disagreement with your opinions. That’s what living in a democratic society means! It means that JK’s opinions have no more influence in policy decisions than the average guy or girl on the street. If she wants to campaign against legislation, then she could put her money where her mouth is and mount a legal challenge to the legislation.

Talk of supporting Maya Forstater is cheap, same as the way she thought Stephen King supported her and licked his arse from here to high heaven, then withdrew her praise when she realised her assumptions that King agreed with her was incorrect. If someone can turn on you as quick as that, their support never meant anything in the first place because it was all about them feeling better about themselves and having their ego stroking reciprocated.

JK found out that King doesn’t need JK, as much as JK needs King.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Poor oul JK thought she had an anti-trans ally in Stephen King over the weekend, but got a nasty shock.

https://twitter.com/notallbhas/status/1277370116188057605

Luckily she has plenty of support (including from her agency and publisher). No amount of tantrum-throwing from people telling her to suck on their girldick (#therightsideofhistoryTM) can get her cancelled. Happy days.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s true, one absolutely can not change their sex. I’ve never argued otherwise. What I have argued, is that we simply lack the tools to be able to determine with any degree of specificity a persons sex. Most of the time it’s simply nothing more than a best guess on the basis that their balls have dropped, otherwise they’re a girl.

haha what? We manage to find out the sex of 100 year old bones. We absolutely have the ability to detemine ones sex.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, and your compromise is simply unsatisfactory, hence why people express disagreement with your opinions. That’s what living in a democratic society means! It means that JK’s opinions have no more influence in policy decisions than the average guy or girl on the street. If she wants to campaign against legislation, then she could put her money where her mouth is and mount a legal challenge to the legislation.

Talk of supporting Maya Forstater is cheap, same as the way she thought Stephen King supported her and licked his arse from here to high heaven, then withdrew her praise when she realised her assumptions that King agreed with her was incorrect. If someone can turn on you as quick as that, their support never meant anything in the first place because it was all about them feeling better about themselves and having their ego stroking reciprocated.

JK found out that King doesn’t need JK, as much as JK needs King.

Why have you brought JK into this? Wrong thread!

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s true, one absolutely can not change their sex. I’ve never argued otherwise. What I have argued, is that we simply lack the tools to be able to determine with any degree of specificity a persons sex.

I must have imagined medical diagnostics tools like cytogenetics or sequencing.

AndrewJRenko

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

We have had all those things, just not in Ireland... yet.

Smith152 wrote: »

Wrong, numerous women have lost out of scholarships and medals in different sports around the world due to men who claim to be women.

Isn't it funny how far people are willing to search to find problems in this one particular area? But not every other area of medical research - just this one particular one.

Why is that now?

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Well what do you mean when you talk of boxes then?

Like you said, traits and assumptions which are more commonly associated with with one sex or the other, and on the basis of those assumptions that’s how people are classified. Anyone who doesn’t fit within the confines of those narrowly defined ideals is immediately regarded as something which needs fixing, as opposed to questioning whether the definitions are what needs fixing.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Isn't it funny how far people are willing to search to find problems in this one particular area? But not every other area of medical research - just this one particular one.

Why is that now?

Wow, looking all the way to Britain. A country we have a border with!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

To those of you tripping over yourself to call people concerned about the erosion of sex-based not only transphobes but also homophobes, what are your thoughts on this excerpt from a BBC article from the weekend? I believe it’s been edited out but the internet is forever. And the following was not the BBC quoting somebody, it was their own writing.



Get that: a mainstream publication called it both discriminatory AND transphobic for a gay man to not want to date or sleep with a transgender man.

Not only is that homophobic but also creepy. Yes, dating and sexual relations are by their very nature discriminatory. That’s how it works. The only justification anyone has to give for not sleeping with or dating somebody is “I don’t want to”. Nobody is entitled to a further explanation.

And people who support this shit have the temerity to call other people homophobic? The brass necks on them.

Quoting myself here but I can pretty much predict that I’ll get no responses defending the BBC’s position in the quoted post because it highlights something completely indefensible.

Though I would like to see somebody try to defend it. Popcorn would be a requirement for reading that post.

But if no responses denouncing what the BBC said are forthcoming from any of the people casually calling others homophobic, then they haven’t a leg to stand on. If they think what the BBC said there is okay then THEY are the homophobes.

Stark

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s true, one absolutely can not change their sex. I’ve never argued otherwise. What I have argued, is that we simply lack the tools to be able to determine with any degree of specificity a persons sex. Most of the time it’s simply nothing more than a best guess on the basis that their balls have dropped, otherwise they’re a girl.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

haha what? We manage to find out the sex of 100 year old bones. We absolutely have the ability to detemine ones sex.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I must have imagined medical diagnostics tools like cytogenetics or sequencing.

Homework for everyone https://www.biointeractive.org/sites/default/files/SexVerification-StudentWS-CL.pdf

Smith152

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Isn't it funny how far people are willing to search to find problems in this one particular area? But not every other area of medical research - just this one particular one.

Why is that now?

Probably because I fear for the future of women's sports if this issue isn't nipped in the bud in the next few years and rules aren't allowed to be implemented by sporting bodies around the world that states that only biological women are allowed to compete in women's sports at any level.

It is a significant issue for women's sport and as someone who's seen how much women's sport has moved forward over the past 20 years it would be a shame for all that good work to be eroded.

Is that a good enough reason for you?