4 year olds able to change gender in Scotland

Morgans · 05-09-2021 12:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117849024#Comment_117849024

So, now you are supporting any person withholding a service based on the politics of the customer. Didn't see you as a supporter of cancel culture Anne_Widdecombe

One eyed Jack · 05-09-2021 12:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117849197#Comment_117849197

No, the point is that the baker has the right to refuse to bake a cake with a political slogan they disagree with, for anyone.

In the very same way, and this appears to be the point you’re continuing to miss - people have the right not to use preferred pronouns. It does not amount to discrimination if they don’t use preferred pronouns for anyone.

Anne_Widdecombe · 05-09-2021 12:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117849234#Comment_117849234

In the same way a trans baker has the right to refuse a customer who comes in and asks for the slogan, "Trans women are not women", to appear on the cake.

This principle works both ways - both for LGBT and non-LGBT.

05-09-2021 3:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117848566#Comment_117848566

Why are you this worked up about me saying that I would not personally prescribe my own pronouns to other people, and that it's not my business what other people say about me when I'm not around?

You're not even satisfied with compelling me to use other people's preferred pronouns now, you also want to compel me to ascribing pronouns to myself and let everyone else know about them.

Well I won't. I don't ascribe to gender identity ideology and I don't **** care if people speaking about me in the third person in my absence want to call me she, he, it or asshole. Again: none of my business.

LLMMLL · 05-09-2021 3:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117848852#Comment_117848852

The basis for your post is complete nonsense.

I do not think that all trans people or TRAs agree on everything. Nor do I think they need to agree on everything. You just didn't read my posts. Similar to how you didn't read the Scottish guidance and made up a load of nonsense about that.

I am simply pointing out that an anti-trans poster believes all trans people/TRAs need to agree to "be taken seriously".

Which is startlingly hypocritical as anti-trans posters do not all agree with each other either.

LLMMLL · 05-09-2021 3:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117849053#Comment_117849053

Now if only they'd learn to use it PROPERLY

Anne_Widdecombe · 05-09-2021 3:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117849771#Comment_117849771

Arguing that the definition of a woman is "either a cis woman or a trans woman" is disingenuous.

You know perfectly well what you're doing with that kind of slippery, deliberate obfuscation. It's designed to avoid the meat of the question because you know, deep down, that the actual definition of woman undermines the ideology you appear intent to pursue.

LLMMLL · 05-09-2021 3:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117849855#Comment_117849855

But you and Cymro were unable to provide a precise definition of "woman". It was so slippery that using your definition you are uable to distinguish between a woman and a girl.

Does that mean you are disingenuous?

For someone who loves definitions you don't seem very good at them.

Anne_Widdecombe · 05-09-2021 4:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117849952#Comment_117849952

Our side of the house successfully argued that the definition of woman was "adult human female"; all of whom are vehicles of the XX chromosome.

You then came along to muddy the waters, asking us to differentiate between when a girl should be called a woman. That wasn't the question, and you know this. It's deliberate muddying of the waters. We can all see through this transparent attempt to evade and distract from the real and legitimate question that you have avoided - and will continue to avoid.

We've asked you to differentiate not between a woman and girl, but between a man and a woman. You have singularly and spectacularly failed to do so - with the best in your armoury being that a woman is "either a cis woman or a trans woman". Again, a spectacular failure on an embarrassing scale; a twin insult to both language and biology.

But I don't blame you for this kind of slippery obfuscation. To accept the actual definition of woman - and how it differs from a man (adult human male; XY chromosomes) - undermines and defeats your argument and, with it, the post-modern bunkum that constitutes the ideology that you unfailingly support.

LLMMLL · 05-09-2021 4:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850020#Comment_117850020

Completely false and DISINGENUOUS post.

Your "side of the house" did not successfully argue about the definition of woman. If we can decide ourselves what a successful definition is then I successfully argued that the definition of woman is "cis women and trans women".

You also claim the issue was always defining "woman" in opposition to "man". Complete fabrication by yourself.

This whole thing came initially from Cymro asking me to define "girl". No mention of "woman" no mention of "man".

You then realised the issues with defining girl so tried to shift the goalposts to defining "woman".

When klaz pointed out to you that it was an idological slip to do this only then did you say you were defining women in opposition to men.

So basically you have made two goalposts moving shifts from the original request to define "girl".

Because you know it weakens your ideological position.

Trying to claim it is me who made the shifts to bolster MY ideological position is ballsy I must admit.

But the post history is there for everyone to see. Everyone knows it is you who shifted the goalposts from the original requests not once, but twice.

You're fooling nobody.

Anne_Widdecombe · 05-09-2021 4:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850044#Comment_117850044

You continue to press your definition of woman as "either a cis woman or a trans woman". I'm confident that 99.5% of the audience reading this thread, or this phase of it, will agree with me that a woman is an "adult human female; all of whom are vehicles for XX chromosomes". A nice, clean, simple definition - rooted in common sense and accepted as an inescapable and permanent axiom of biology.

To distract from this awkwardness, you throw up the smokescreen of, "...but, but, but, when does a girl get to be called a woman by society - 16, 17, 18 years old?".

A nauseatingly smelly red herring has just been dragged across the floor of this debate. I know it, you know it, we all know it.

LLMMLL · 05-09-2021 4:49pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850106#Comment_117850106

Ah the old "I'm going to claim X% of people agree with me, with zero proof".

You're not very scientific at all if you think that's a valid argument. But hey since you think it is, I guess I can use it too:

I think 100% of the audience of this thread agree with me on all aspects of trans rights.

No need for the thread anymore. I win.

05-09-2021 4:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117849952#Comment_117849952

But you and Cymro were unable to provide a precise definition of "woman".

Actually, no. I stopped engaging with you because of your refusal to define "girl" in a non-self referential manner, and because of an observed desire on your part to descend into Foucauldian discourse destruction whereby words don't really mean anything and nothing can really be defined. I understand that all discussion with TRAs ultimately ends up here, because in order for "girl" or "woman" to mean "anyone who says they're a girl or woman, including 4-year-olds who said they were Iron Man yesterday, effeminate gay boys from homophobic families who would prefer straight daughters, and male sexual predators" then words cannot really have any true meaning, just as "deity is unknowable" is the retreat of the fundamental religious person when asked to tackle any of the myriad internal contradictions within their doctrine. I have found it to be a waste of time trying to engage with fundamentalist extremists, whatever the doctrine of choice, so my time is better spent doing pretty much anything else than engaging with people who refuse to be engaged with.

I hope that clears that up for you.

LLMMLL · 05-09-2021 5:00pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850157#Comment_117850157

We both know you stopped engaging because you couldn't define "girl" yourself. You know that communicating the young part of the definition is non scientific and completely vague and fuzzy.

You clearly don't understand "discourse destruction" if you believe I am trying to say words have no meaning.

The issue is not that words have meaning or don't have meaning. It's that people with little understanding of science/linguistics/psychology don't understand the purpose of definitions in these fields.

Hope that clears it up for you

Anne_Widdecombe · 05-09-2021 5:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850173#Comment_117850173

That red herring just got a whole lot more smellier.

LLMMLL · 05-09-2021 5:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850181#Comment_117850181

I'm not surprised that you find an actual understanding of science to be a red herring.

05-09-2021 5:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850173#Comment_117850173

We both know you stopped engaging because you couldn't define "girl" yourself.

No, no. I know my own motivation and have been very clear about it.

You are uncharitably inferring my motivation because it's what you'd like to believe of the world.

As we have established, you are entitled to believe what you wish. I am not obliged to jump aboard the delusion train with you.

Nobody needs a background in science, linguistics or psychology to be able to see when someone is attempting to obfuscate and bluster their way out of an untenable position.

But as you said. The thread is here for all to read.

I won't be engaging with you on this thread any more, so have fun with your "last word" dude.

LLMMLL · 05-09-2021 5:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850211#Comment_117850211

So you will engage with me and reply to my posts but you still won't give your definition of "girl".

Also you will engage with me (you are doing so now) but will claim you are no longer engaging with me.

You're right. Everyone can see the posts. And it's obvious you are perfectly willing to engage unless asked to give a definition which you claim to be able to do (but just won't do because you're not engaging with me but also you are engaging with me) and which others on your side who have tried have failed at.

Yup I think your position is perfectly clear for all to see.

Anne_Widdecombe · 05-09-2021 5:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850191#Comment_117850191

Your strategy, as @[Deleted User] articulated above, is to drag the conversation down the rabbit hole of when a girl should be called a woman.

16 years old?
17 years and 3 months and 4 days?
18 years and 3 months and 2 days and 18 hours?

That way, you can dismiss the word "girl" and "woman" as meaning anything to do with biology. You want us to forget about biological reality, because you know perfectly well that the actual definition of woman (adult human female; vehicles of XX chromosomes) renders asunder your ideology.

It's embarrassing, and it has a disturbing overlap with religious theology - especially Young Earth Creationism. In other words, throw out science and reason and evidence because they are inconvenient truths to what you want to believe is true.

And no matter how hard you try, you'll never be able to change the definition of woman as anything other than "adult human female; vehicles of XX chromosomes". No amount of linguistic tricks, manipulation, or theological waffle can change that reality.

The only reason I've expounded the above is to edify that part of the reading audience who may be unfamiliar with the slippery techniques and logical fallacies deployed in this argument.

LLMMLL · 05-09-2021 5:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850243#Comment_117850243

Absolute nonsense.

Your supposed biological definition includes the word "adult".

Please give me the definition of adult that perfectly divides individuals into two categories: adult and non-adult.

You can pretend your definition is scientific all you like by including scientific words such as chromosome. The fact that you think including a bunch of scientific words makes your fuzzy unscientific definition of woman suddenly scientific shows that you do not understand science at all.

Anne_Widdecombe · 05-09-2021 5:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850258#Comment_117850258

What started out as a singular red herring has now become a full aquarium.

And that's what the trans ideology has become reduced to asking, namely: what is an adult?

I think I'll just leave it there.

05-09-2021 5:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117849952#Comment_117849952

A girl is a female human child. A woman is a grown up female. Female humans are biologically different to males.

Did you not know the difference?

LLMMLL · 05-09-2021 5:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850276#Comment_117850276

I never bring up definitions. It is ALWAYS anti-trans posters. In this case it was you and Cymro who asked.

Cymro asked "what is a girl".

You asked "what is a woman".

Now you're claiming my argument is crazy because I asked "what is an adult". LOL.

of course we both know the reason for this bizarre hypocrisy is that you know your definition is fuzzy and unscientific and you're dodging my question.

So i assume you won't be asking me to define "girl" or "woman" again as.you think asking for definitions is crazy?

05-09-2021 5:39pm

I find it a little worrying that a trans rights activist thinks the most basic understanding of what the difference is between a child and an adult is fuzzy.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-09-2021 6:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117846324#Comment_117846324

Plenty of single parents bring their small kids of the opposite gender into changing rooms with them. Kids are not as disturbed by nudity as you seem to think they are.

You appear to be trying to create a scenario to fit your agenda here....?

05-09-2021 6:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850510#Comment_117850510

What agenda is that? Is it the agenda that segregated changing areas based on biology should be adhered to (notwithstanding the ability for a parent to bring their child supervised in with them if necessary)?

05-09-2021 6:58pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850537#Comment_117850537

Even without the aspect of children being involved, most adults prefer having segregated changing rooms. This came up before on other threads about changing rooms, and other places which are segregated by gender, and the truth is that the majority would prefer to have a space that is solely for that gender. Young children are exempted because of their age, but even then, most people would alter their behavior somewhat should there be a small child be present.

While it might not be terribly practical, having separate changing rooms for Trans people makes the most sense, and causes the least amount of friction for everyone concerned. The only people who are bothered by such an idea would be trans advocates.. because they want to be accepted completely and without reservation.. which means forcing two other genders to comply with their wishes. Somehow.. and I never quite understand why... that's supposed to be reasonable. That the majority bend over to accept the desires of a definite minority who have chosen to move away from the traditional genders, and the systems that exist for those two traditional genders. It's just bizarre.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-09-2021 7:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850537#Comment_117850537

The idea that seeing genitalia alternate to their own is harmful to kids.

05-09-2021 7:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850595#Comment_117850595

Nobody has said that. I would be uncomfortable if my young daughter was going into a female changing room and there was an adult biological male in there.

Women and girls should be allowed their own spaces.

The idea that you have made it out that it is about seeing alternate genitalia seems to be creating a scenario to fit your own agenda.

Anne_Widdecombe · 05-09-2021 7:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117850510#Comment_117850510

There is an agenda, yes, I agree with you. An agenda where scenarios are being created to fit a specific narrative.

My only point of contention is that this agenda is not coming from me, it's coming from the other side of this argument.

4 year olds able to change gender in Scotland

Comments