Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

AndrewJRenko

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Let me stop you there. I. Am. Shocked. That. You. Do. Not. Know.

And yet you feel confident in saying that transgender women (or men claiming to be as self ID facilitates) pose no threat to women. That’s a bold statement to make from a base of no knowledge.

To believe that criminality levels also transition to that of a woman is to subscribe to magical thinking. Don’t know about you but I’m not willing to do that. This is too important.

Women on women assaults are awful. Why heap more horrors on top of that from far physically stronger inmates?

I'm shocked that you've attributed several statements to me that I didn't actually say.

How about we stick to discussing things that I actually said?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm shocked that you've attributed several statements to me that I didn't actually say.

How about we stick to discussing things that I actually said?

Oh, you said plenty.

AndrewJRenko

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh, you said plenty.

That's true.

Though I didn't say the many things that you just attributed to me.

suicide_circus

Over on the "Abortion in Ireland" thread it is worth noting that people are discussing women's bodies and choices.

No mention of "uterus havers" or the like.

Probably because when push comes to shove and an actual serious topic is being aired, no one, not even the wokest among us, takes that utter shite seriously.

Gruffalux

suicide_circus wrote: »

Over on the "Abortion in Ireland" thread it is a worth noting that people are discussing women's bodies and choices.

No mention of "uterus havers" or the like.

Probably because when push comes to shove and an actual serious topic is being aired, no one, not even the wokest among us, takes that utter shite seriously.

What!

The perfectly civilised conversation to have regarding female things starts as follows..

Activist - I think we will broaden the definition of woman to include any man who self identifies as a woman in any circumstance.
Observer - Hang on a minute there, sunshine. Do you not think that is a wee bit crazy?
Activist - Shut up TERF! Facking transphobe! How very dare you, you backward phobic bigot!

Anything else seems a bit tame to be honest.

Sir Oxman

Deleted User wrote: »

Damn. Speaking of Reddit, I just see now they banned 2,000 subreddits. They chose their timing perfectly.

Not that it matters to anyone else in the world, it could be time for me to jump. Censorship is a joke, especially when saying that hate is allowed to be directed at the majority group.

And with Reddit being an international mega platform, it's very telling they can't/won't define 'majority'

ReefBreak

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Deadnaming is a pretty sh1tty thing to do.
He's a bully.

I'd definitely consider myself very liberal, but I've never quite understood why people consider "dead naming" to be so offensive. To me being SO offended by dead-naming is a bit of an insult to your parents who came up the "dead name".

Sir Oxman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Andrew Doyle, the guy behind Titania McGrath (and he’s left wing - I really want to point that out) made the point that activists are overrepresented in media, the arts and politics. In other words, areas of huge influence. That’s his analysis of the UK, I don’t know if it would hold for Ireland.

And it was actually Linehan who drew attention to the fact that self-ID was snuck in in Ireland on the back of a much more popular reform, marriage equality. Lobbyists for self-ID were advised to draw as little media attention to it as possible. Which is strange. Most activists want media attention.

Apparently there was a public consultation about self-ID at the time but did any of y’all hear about it? I didn’t.



Meghan Murphy was banned from Twitter for saying “that’s him” about that Yaniv... article even though Yaniv was going by Jonathan at the time she said it. Permanently banned.

Incidentally, the Titania McGrath account has been suspended a few times. Can’t even take a joke, they can’t.

Of course, there is this document lauding the tactic of staying 'under the radar'
https://www.iglyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/IGLYO_v3-1.pdf
"Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth'


"Media/Public Sentiment: The legislation went under the radar in Ireland because marriage equality was gaining the most focus. In a way, this was helpful according to the activists, because it meant that they were able to focus on persuading politicians that the change was necessary. This is a common technique that we have seen in many of the successful campaigns, and it was very effective in Ireland. Activists prepared materials such as videos with case studies and targeted politicians to raise awareness of the seriousness of the issues. To do this, they looked at human rights principles, examples of other countries such as Malta and Iceland, and had trans people tell their personal stories in order to put a human face on the issues.



Reflections:
The most important lesson from the Irish experience is arguably that trans advocates can possibly be much more strategic by trying to pass legislation “under the radar” by latching trans rights legislation onto more popular legal reforms (e.g. marriage equality), rather taking more combative, public facing, approaches

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ReefBreak wrote: »

I'd definitely consider myself very liberal, but I've never quite understood why people consider "dead naming" to be so offensive. To me being SO offended by dead-naming is a bit of an insult to your parents who came up the "dead name".

And does that mean that Caitlyn Jenner doesn’t acknowledge her gold medal winning performance at the 1976 Olympics? I doubt it.

AndrewJRenko

ReefBreak wrote: »

I'd definitely consider myself very liberal, but I've never quite understood why people consider "dead naming" to be so offensive. To me being SO offended by dead-naming is a bit of an insult to your parents who came up the "dead name".

Have you tried talking to any trans people about it?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you tried talking to any trans people about it?

Are people not allowed to have their own opinion on it? Do you only have opinions about things that directly affect you? I doubt that very much.

AndrewJRenko

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Are people not allowed to have their own opinion on it? Do you only have opinions about things that directly affect you? I doubt that very much.

Yes, people are absolutely allowed to hold whatever opinions they wish.

The poster seemed to be on a quest for understanding, so I just made a helpful suggestion.

If the poster doesn't actually want to understand how trans people feel about this, maybe they should stop pretending.

Wombatman

Why not keep male and female for the biological stuff and man and woman when bringing in other gender defining traits?

When someone is sitting in front of you chatting with you, you generally make a determination of their gender, withing having any hard biological information available, based on other traits.

Why not let a person make the same determination about themselves, who genuinely feel more man than woman or woman than man?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wombatman wrote: »

Why not keep male and female for the biological stuff and man and woman when bringing in other gender defining traits?

When someone is sitting in front of you chatting with you, you generally make a determination of their gender, withing having any hard biological information available, based on other traits.

Why not let a person make the same determination about themselves, who genuinely feel more man than woman or woman than man?

Yes, you’re right, it’s impossible to figure out biological sex.

In reality, I think a person’s biological sex is pretty clear most of the time, unless the transgender person didn’t go through puberty which is a whole other can of worms.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

Over on the "Abortion in Ireland" thread it is worth noting that people are discussing women's bodies and choices.

No mention of "uterus havers" or the like.

Probably because when push comes to shove and an actual serious topic is being aired, no one, not even the wokest among us, takes that utter shite seriously.

It’s really not all that noteworthy at all. Nobody is discussing ‘females’ and ‘biological realities’, or XX chromosomes or any of the rest of that other nonsense either.

All it demonstrates really is more of the same identity politics nonsense adopted by people who will refer to themselves as ‘classic liberals‘ in order to explain away the cognitive distancing when they’re reminded that people who are transgender also require access to ‘women’s healthcare’ (a purposely ambiguous euphemism which is used to refer to the ‘biological reality’ of abortion).

When the British Medical Association released guidelines on inclusive language for their members, the tabloids jumped on it to suggest that medical professionals were now being forced to refer to women as ‘pregnant persons’. Some people leapt on the story as though the tabloids had somehow decided that reporting facts was a better business model, instead of doing their own research and finding out what the BMA had actually advised -


We received the following correspondence from a third party who’d probed this story further. The BMA writes:

The story in the Daily Telegraph is deliberately misleading as is the story in the Daily Mail. We did tell the Daily Mail this before they printed the story .

The story claims the BMA has issued guidance to doctors on what language to use to describe pregnant patients, claiming doctors have been advised not to use the term “expectant mothers” as it might offend transgender patients.

This story is wholly inaccurate, the document and “introduction” they refer to related to a guide for BMA staff and representatives aimed at promoting an inclusive workplace at the BMA. It is not “official guidance” and has not been issued to doctors.

This was our public comment:

A BMA spokesperson said:

“This is a guide for BMA staff and representatives aimed at promoting an inclusive workplace at the BMA, it is not workplace guidance for doctors which is clear from the fact it does not refer to patients.”

Best regards
Corporate development

British Medical Association


BMA: Using 'Expectant Mother' Could Offend Transgender People


I don’t expect that anyone will actually bother reminding people in that thread that people who are transgender also require access to maternity services (it’s like there are a million different ways to refer to what is essentially the same thing? Languages be like that :pac:), and these are the sorts of things that won’t occur to Linehan or Rowling or to most people who take whatever they have access to already. for granted - they’ll talk about how the things they take for granted were “hard fought for” and all the rest of it, as though they actually fought for anything, and now they’re in a position where they can make life difficult for other people by arguing they should be denied equal rights, for no other reason other than what really boils down to pure spite!

They don’t want to have to treat people who aren’t like them equally, other people have to earn it, and even then, they won’t get it, because people will point to the handful of cases of the worst of humanity and say “that’s why they can’t be granted equal treatment”, ignoring the worst of humanity which shares characteristics with themselves (that’s considerably more people btw, solely by virtue of the amount of people who share more characteristics in common than any they don’t).

You imagine that maternity services and care and parental rights aren’t a serious topic for people who are transgender? I’m not surprised these things don’t occur to most people, and if it does occur to anyone in that thread, they’ll keep shtum, because they know they’ll be hounded out of it. Seamus lamented the lack of dissenting voices on Boards yesterday, I’m not sure if Seamus understands what dissenting voices sounds like, because they aren’t heard above the majority. It’s easy for Linehan and Rowling to play the victim and claim they are dissenting voices and they’re being attacked by all the mean people, but social media is not a reflection of Western society where the idea of people who are transgender doesn’t even occur to most people, let alone the idea of people who are transgender mounting legal challenges to gain recognition in law.

As far as ODB knew, self-ID had been snuck in through the back door by activists. Her source for this information was Linehan, whereas if she’d bothered to do her own research (if one claims to have an interest in bioethics and scientific qualifications of some sort, the least I would expect they are capable of is doing their own research and presenting their own opinions, demonstrating an understanding of topic), but no, for some reason the opinions of a writer of no notable contributions to any field of scientific inquiry is sufficient evidence to conclude legislation was snuck in through the back door, and it wasn’t a 20 year fight in the highest Courts of Law in Ireland to force Ireland to fulfil it’s Human Rights obligations according to a Convention they signed up to in 2003, the same one the UK signed up to and introduced gender recognition legislation a year later after a case was taken in the European Court of Human Rights by Christine Goodwin.

Speaking of the UK and abortion and parental rights and all that sort of stuff, those pesky people who are transgender when they’re not demanding that JK suck on their ladydick (because they’re all the same really :rolleyes:), they’re mounting legal challenges to current legislation in order to be recognised and protected from discrimination in the area of parental rights too -


Transgender man loses appeal court battle to be registered as father


Transgender woman ends bid to see her ultra-Orthodox Jewish children


With more and more people who are transgender having the technology available to them to decide when they want to have children, if they want to have children, that they don’t have to undergo mandatory sterilisation in order to transition (as was the case in law up to 2012 in that beacon of feminist equality, Sweden), that they don’t have to undergo any unnecessary medicalisation at all due to law in Ireland which protects them from discrimination, they’re gonna need access to abortion services, maternity services, pregnancy services, parental rights, and in reality - it really won’t matter that it’s called this, that or the other. In reality, biology doesn’t care what people call it, biology will just do it’s thing regardless of any laws, as it always has done throughout human history. It’s the law which is going to have to catch up to that reality that society is changing and it’s a fact that current legislation in some areas needs to be updated to accommodate this reality. The nuclear family just took on a whole new meaning (microbiology joke :pac:).

Gruffalux

Wombatman wrote: »

Why not let a person make the same determination about themselves, who genuinely feel more man than woman or woman than man?

Will this self determinination apply to a genuinely woman feeling person demanding upon pain of legal action that a working class immigrant lady wax her balls?

Asking for a friend

AndrewJRenko

Gruffalox wrote: »

Will this self determinination apply to a genuinely woman feeling person demanding upon pain of legal action that a working class immigrant lady wax her balls?

Asking for a friend

Asking for a friend who likes to dig up obscure cases from around the world and use them to rile up those who really aren't that clever?

Self ID applies to everyone of course, and has done here for four or five years without any difficulties.

The question of a legal case around waxing is an entirely different question to self ID, so I'm not sure why you would want to mix the two up.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

Will this self determinination apply to a genuinely woman feeling person demanding upon pain of legal action that a working class immigrant lady wax her balls?

Asking for a friend

I know what should annoy me the most about that case is the targeting of vulnerable women (women who operated out of their homes etc.) but being a science head, what I can’t get my head around is Yaniv not understanding that many aestheticians are not qualified to wax scrotal skin. Like, they could do serious damage to the area if they tried to do so unqualified. Not every aesthetician offers every service, just like not every hairdresser does hair dying (a salon will often have a specialist for that or a particular salon will be known for it). Some aestheticians do hair removal of male body parts but I understand that it takes special training.

But remember, Gruffalox, you are only allowed to talk about Ireland.

Wombatman

Gruffalox wrote: »

Will this self determinination apply to a genuinely woman feeling person demanding upon pain of legal action that a working class immigrant lady wax her balls?

Asking for a friend

What about this situation? What about that situation? Outlandish exceptions to the rule and red herrings.

You don't want biological males who feel thy are "all woman" be treated as women and vise versa. Just come out and say it and be done with it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wombatman wrote: »

What about this situation? What about that situation? Outlandish exceptions to the rule and red herrings.

You don't want biological males who feel thy are "all woman" be treated as women and vise versa. Just come out and say it and be done with it.

But they aren’t all woman. They can’t be. No matter how they feel. There are significant biological differences that aren’t nothing and they can’t be changed. Some of those differences put women at risk. I can’t speak for anybody else but I’ve been pretty clear on my stance. A transgender woman can present exactly how she likes and I will call her she. However, the thought police don’t exist and I and others cannot be forced to believe her to literally be a woman.

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Asking for a friend who likes to dig up obscure cases from around the world and use them to rile up those who really aren't that clever?

Self ID applies to everyone of course, and has done here for four or five years without any difficulties.

The question of a legal case around waxing is an entirely different question to self ID, so I'm not sure why you would want to mix the two up.

Because it is a clear example of how self ID can be abused. From a common law jurisdiction even You can read all about it in major international newspapers (and in a Canadian accent if you prefer. )

Perhaps the 1 in 10 traveler men in UK prisons who feel like a woman is close enough for you?

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Because it is a clear example of how self ID can be abused.

How were self-ID laws abused in that case when it was a case of determining whether or not JY’s claims of discrimination were legitimate according to BC Law?

From anything I’ve read, the judgement was that JY did not have a legitimate claim of discrimination and their cases against all aestheticians involved were dismissed, with JY having to pay all legal costs.

It’s not a clear example of how self-ID laws are abused, it’s a clear case of a person trying to abuse equality laws, same as Maya Forstater tried to do in claiming she was discriminated against when her former employer did not renew her contract because in their view she had consistently breached the terms of her employment, in spite of being given every opportunity to rectify her behaviour.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But they aren’t all woman. They can’t be. No matter how they feel. There are significant biological differences that aren’t nothing and they can’t be changed. Some of those differences put women at risk. I can’t speak for anybody else but I’ve been pretty clear on my stance. A transgender woman can present exactly how she likes and I will call her she. However, the thought police don’t exist and I and others cannot be forced to believe her to literally be a woman.

How do biological differences put anyone else at risk? It’s a persons attitudes and behaviours towards other people that puts other people at risk, not simply as a consequence of any biological characteristics.

The thought police don’t exist, and in their absence you and the people who agree with you on this topic will try and appoint yourself the arbiter of other people’s thoughts and how they should refer to themselves. Of course that doesn’t make you the thought police in that scenario, you’re just telling other people about “biological reality”, while claiming that somehow as a consequence of biological differences, people are in danger!

Nobody can force you to believe anything, you showed an example of that already when you chose to believe Linehan’s hot take on Irish Law over doing your own research, maybe Gruffalox with their two degrees in Law could help you out with a better understanding of Irish Law, or Oscar Milde the microbiologist who appears to be more concerned about people who are transgenders fashion sense. I can understand that much in fairness, some of it is fcuking dire, but I’d say that about anyone, based on their attire, not on their sex, which according to Oscar is appropriating gender stereotypes or some other such nonsense.

I don’t know how to address the issue of people who are transgender wearing what they see other people wearing, perhaps introduce a law that they should have some identifying marker on their foreheads or something so everyone would know, and those people who are worried about being attacked by them will be able to give them a wide berth when they see them walking down the street in their hot pants and hooker boots looking like they’d been shot in the face with Homer Simpson’s makeup gun while they’re just trying to do normal shìt like their shopping in Tesco -


Tesco launches inquiry into employees posting online photos and videos abusing trans customers


Aye, it’s people who aren’t transgender need to be afraid of people who are transgender alright :rolleyes:

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do biological differences put anyone else at risk? It’s a persons attitudes and behaviours towards other people that puts other people at risk, not simply as a consequence of any biological difference:

Must admit I usually scroll swiftly past your sermons but on this point I thought to help you out. The whole basis of safeguarding in public is about protecting people in situations where there is unequal distribution of power, be that physical strength, authority, career influence etc. So now teachers or activity leaders have to be vetted before interacting with children and they should not be alone with them in closed spaces. And we have separate sex facilities for safeguarding so that women and girls can be safer than if they had to change or shower among males etc.
Heres a thing that might seem strange to you if you cannot perceive how biological differences put people at risk. Vaginas rape penises much less often than penises rape vaginas. Shocker, I know. Now vaginas DO rape penises but in terms of safeguarding it is far far less frequent. And so we as societies evolved ways of safeguarding in public places. Some countries have not yet done this but campaigns are afoot to increase safeguarding in public in these places.
It has been found in real life experience that transgender women rape women in prison. And thar most sexual assaults in the UK occur in unisex facilities. Oh I know every passerby is raping the poor women prisoners according to you but I see no reason to further dilute safeguarding and increase risk. And yes, my opinion is on the basis of the biological difference increases risk whereby the penis on a prisoner in a female jail seems to be a proven extra threat to the prisoners with vaginas.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Must admit I usually scroll swiftly past your sermons but on this point I thought to help you out. The whole basis of safeguarding in public is about protecting people in situations where there is unequal distribution of power, be that physical strength, authority, career influence etc. So now teachers or activity leaders have to be vetted before interacting with children and they should not be alone with them in closed spaces. And we have separate sex facilities for safeguarding so that women and girls can be safer than if they had to change or shower among males etc.
Heres a thing that might seem strange to you if you cannot perceive how biological differences put people at risk. Vaginas rape penises much less often than penises rape vaginas. Shocker, I know. Now vaginas DO rape penises but in terms of safeguarding it is far far less frequent. And so we as societies evolved ways of safeguarding in public places. Some countries have not yet done this but campaigns are afoot to increase safeguarding in public in these places.
It has been found in real life experience that transgender women rape women in prison. And thar most sexual assaults in the UK occur in unisex facilities. Oh I know every passerby is raping the poor women prisoners according to you but I see no reason to further dilute safeguarding and increase risk. And yes, my opinion is on the basis of the biological difference increases risk whereby the penis on a prisoner in a female jail seems to be a proven extra threat to the prisoners with vaginas.

Well that wasn’t helpful at all? You just reiterated the point I made that people’s attitudes and behaviours towards others is what puts other people in danger. You didn’t explain anything about how biological differences put anyone in danger?

For what it’s worth though, I’ll keep an eye out for any flying penises or vulvae that might be flapping about in the wind when a gust gets up and they aren’t anchored down.

Vaginas raping penises and penises raping vaginas, Jesus G, come on, seriously? I feel you might be taking and dissecting this “biological reality” stuff a bit too literally :pac:

Stark

Where do assholes fit into it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32iCWzpDpKs

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I feel you might be taking and dissecting this “biological reality” stuff a bit too literally :pac:

And I feel you may be taking this biological reality stuff in the exact manner I would expect a deconstructionist to take it. There is no truth, according to them, and you, it seems.

Our twain shall never meet.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do biological differences put anyone else at risk? It’s a persons attitudes and behaviours towards other people that puts other people at risk, not simply as a consequence of any biological characteristics.

The thought police don’t exist, and in their absence you and the people who agree with you on this topic will try and appoint yourself the arbiter of other people’s thoughts and how they should refer to themselves. Of course that doesn’t make you the thought police in that scenario, you’re just telling other people about “biological reality”, while claiming that somehow as a consequence of biological differences, people are in danger!

Nobody can force you to believe anything, you showed an example of that already when you chose to believe Linehan’s hot take on Irish Law over doing your own research, maybe Gruffalox with their two degrees in Law could help you out with a better understanding of Irish Law, or Oscar Milde the microbiologist who appears to be more concerned about people who are transgenders fashion sense. I can understand that much in fairness, some of it is fcuking dire, but I’d say that about anyone, based on their attire, not on their sex, which according to Oscar is appropriating gender stereotypes or some other such nonsense.

I don’t know how to address the issue of people who are transgender wearing what they see other people wearing, perhaps introduce a law that they should have some identifying marker on their foreheads or something so everyone would know, and those people who are worried about being attacked by them will be able to give them a wide berth when they see them walking down the street in their hot pants and hooker boots looking like they’d been shot in the face with Homer Simpson’s makeup gun while they’re just trying to do normal shìt like their shopping in Tesco -


Tesco launches inquiry into employees posting online photos and videos abusing trans customers


Aye, it’s people who aren’t transgender need to be afraid of people who are transgender alright :rolleyes:

I'm a molecular biologist not a microbiologist. Big difference. And I'm resolutely unconcerned with people's attire. It was LLMMLL who brought up feminine attire in the other thread when describing one of the attributes people use to identify women. But nice try at muddying my very clear stance on this issue.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

And I feel you may be taking this biological reality stuff in the exact manner I would expect a deconstructionist to take it. There is no truth, according to them, and you, it seems.

Our twain shall never meet.

We appear to have a very different ideas of deconstructionism (I know, I know, a deconstructionist would say that :pac:), but whatever you think I share in common with deconstructionists, I’m not the poster who was implying that bodily organs had their own agency. That’s even worse than the idea of “uterus havers”. Anyone might be forgiven for thinking you were channeling Anna Dworkin, but I know you’re neither a feminist, nor do you hate men that much... only their penises, which have become detached and taken on a life of their own.

Completely rational.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I'm a molecular biologist not a microbiologist. Big difference. And I'm resolutely unconcerned with people's attire. It was LLMMLL who brought up feminine attire in the other thread when describing one of the attributes people use to identify women. But nice try at muddying my very clear stance on this issue.

You can be the second coming of Christ for all I care.

I was referring to your earlier opinion btw -

OscarMIlde wrote: »

You can't argue with the actual points people make about biology, so you resort to whataboutery of 'future knowledge' and class them as close minded. When called on the regressive nature of the stereotypes transwomen adopt when claiming to 'know' they are really a woman you claim to disagree with such stereotypical views. Your positions are logically inconsistent and I don't understand why someone would be so intent on defending the ideology behind such views when they also claim to not agree with labelling and putting people into boxes based on their sex.

It’s understandable that my position would appear to be logically inconsistent to you given that you have consistently tried to say I said things I didn’t, and you argue against that instead of addressing the points I did make, except to correct me on something which is clearly of greater significance to you.

I’ll be sure to address you by your proper title in future. Now would that be Oscar, Ms. Milde, Dr. Milde, or Dr. Oscar Milde? Whichever you prefer, I’m easy.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We appear to have a very different ideas of deconstructionism (I know, I know, a deconstructionist would say that :pac:), but whatever you think I share in common with deconstructionists, I’m not the poster who was implying that bodily organs had their own agency. That’s even worse than the idea of “uterus havers”. Anyone might be forgiven for thinking you were channeling Anna Dworkin, but I know you’re neither a feminist, nor do you hate men that much... only their penises, which have become detached and taken on a life of their own.

Completely rational.





You can be the second coming of Christ for all I care.

I was referring to your earlier opinion btw -





It’s understandable that my position would appear to be logically inconsistent to you given that you have consistently tried to say I said things I didn’t, and you argue against that instead of addressing the points I did make, except to correct me on something which is clearly of greater significance to you.

I’ll be sure to address you by your proper title in future. Now would that be Oscar, Ms. Milde, Dr. Milde, or Dr. Oscar Milde? Whichever you prefer, I’m easy.

Quote the post where I was judging what people wear since you are claiming I made such a post.

In fact my point about gender stereotypes was that people shouldn't be boxed into behaving a certain way because of their biological sex, but should be free to express themselves as they wish.