I want to say live and let live. I treat everyone as I find with equal respect and reverence. I was in the company of new people who knew a good friend of mine recently . On the journey home he said that this huge bald bloke with a beard who had been in our presence all evening was born a female and did I realise.
I said I did not realise and said good luck to her if she is now happy. For all I knew she was a man. I don’t know if she had changed organs and it was none of my business if she was now happy in the right body. It is of no concern to anyone but her.
Thank you for your honesty.
The reason your experiences are not pertinent to the debate is this:
Trans organisations and charities are pushing the idea that the only thing necessary for someone to be seen as having become a member of the opposite sex is a self declared assertion, and that that assertion should suffice. No operations, no hormones necessary.
Humans cant actually change sex, but you’re right; there’s no harm most of the time in people living their lives in a way that corresponds to their own idea of what it is to be a member of the opposite sex.
The issue arises when sex matters.
Here’s what I mean. You meet a male person at a festival, wearing a dress, and correctly recognise that how that male person presents is no harm to you, and so you accept that some men wear dresses, and sometimes believe themselves to be women. That’s not in dispute by anyone aside from the most rabid right wing bigot.
But the issue would be this; let’s say your mother requires intimate care as she gets older. For her safety and dignity, she would like her care to be carried out by a female career, and you presumably would support her in that.
If an organisation assigned a male person who believes himself to be a woman to be an appropriate person to provide intimate care (as has actual;y happened when organisations started designing policies based on Stonewall’s guidelines), would you consider that to be fine, or would you take issue? (and if you think it’s fine, while I disagree, that’s up to you. My aim here is to show you what the clash of rights is - in this case the right of a male person to have his identity validated in all circumstances, Vs the right of a female person to have same sex care)
So the whole shooting match is because you don't want your old mums arse wiped when she's in the care home by a transwoman. Jesus Christ. Have you any idea how weak and thin that "point" is?
Considering you’re still very, very busy indeed from when you failed to answer my questions a couple of months ago, and considering how self evidently moronic your two posts just now are, I’m comfortable with leaving your questions unanswered, since “lol this is all about the dignity of old women? that’s all you’ve got?” and “lol are you saying children can’t consent to lifelong sterilisation” are such laughably moronic interventions that leaving them stand on their own is testament to the level of wilful stupidity required to go to bat for trans activism.
Have a nice weekend though Max.
So you have no answer. As an example to demonstrate your anti trans rights position, you create a hypothetical old mum in the care home trope. A very weak example to support you whipping up a moral panic. Very good.
Genuine lol at the idea that I would struggle to come up with a coherent rebuttal to your dismissal of the idea that the dignity of vulnerable women is relevant in a debate about a clash of rights between women and male people who believe themselves to be women. Yeah, I’d struggle with that, it’d be so, so tough to try to cobble together an answer.
CEB wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 12:58 pm
Genuine lol at the idea that I would struggle to come up with a coherent rebuttal to your dismissal of the idea that the dignity of vulnerable women is relevant in a debate about a clash of rights between women and male people who believe themselves to be women. Yeah, I’d struggle with that, it’d be so, so tough to try to cobble together an answer.
Max, why do you beclown yourself so?
You're the one who brought your mums arse wiping regime into it. Can you at least accept it doesn't help your argument that much? Come on you can do it.
Also please quote the bit where I said the dignity of vulnerable women isn't important. Stop making things up. It's a real poor debating trait you have.
I’m so pleased that I recognised the misogyny of the trans rights movement early on. God, the idea that I might be saying things as stupid as ^ that ^ if I’d just happily assumed that yep, if lefties support something, I guess that as a lefty I’d better support it too. Doesn’t bear thinking about.
CEB wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 1:13 pm
I’m so pleased that I recognised the misogyny of the trans rights movement early on. God, the idea that I might be saying things as stupid as ^ that ^ if I’d just happily assumed that yep, if lefties support something, I guess that as a lefty I’d better support it too. Doesn’t bear thinking about.
Again, have a nice weekend Max.
Resorting to abuse and making things up means I win. Again.
I've always believed, in this context, CEB and people of a similar mindset have a moral obligation to keep their opinions to themselves, rather than add weight to the narrative that enables online abuse and threats of violence every day simply for being trans.
CEB wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:01 am
“Are you hoping for thought police to be appointed?”
Again, can you read?
Think what you like. It’s just bizarre that you think that your internal observation that you were socialising with a man who believes he is a woman, and your subsequent recognition that it has no impact on you, is in any way pertinent to the trans debate. Do you understand what is being debated in the “trans debate”?
Now you have asked, no I don’t know.
I want to say live and let live. I treat everyone as I find with equal respect and reverence. I was in the company of new people who knew a good friend of mine recently . On the journey home he said that this huge bald bloke with a beard who had been in our presence all evening was born a female and did I realise.
I said I did not realise and said good luck to her if she is now happy. For all I knew she was a man. I don’t know if she had changed organs and it was none of my business if she was now happy in the right body. It is of no concern to anyone but her.
Thank you for your honesty.
The reason your experiences are not pertinent to the debate is this:
Trans organisations and charities are pushing the idea that the only thing necessary for someone to be seen as having become a member of the opposite sex is a self declared assertion, and that that assertion should suffice. No operations, no hormones necessary.
Humans cant actually change sex, but you’re right; there’s no harm most of the time in people living their lives in a way that corresponds to their own idea of what it is to be a member of the opposite sex.
The issue arises when sex matters.
Here’s what I mean. You meet a male person at a festival, wearing a dress, and correctly recognise that how that male person presents is no harm to you, and so you accept that some men wear dresses, and sometimes believe themselves to be women. That’s not in dispute by anyone aside from the most rabid right wing bigot.
But the issue would be this; let’s say your mother requires intimate care as she gets older. For her safety and dignity, she would like her care to be carried out by a female career, and you presumably would support her in that.
If an organisation assigned a male person who believes himself to be a woman to be an appropriate person to provide intimate care (as has actual;y happened when organisations started designing policies based on Stonewall’s guidelines), would you consider that to be fine, or would you take issue? (and if you think it’s fine, while I disagree, that’s up to you. My aim here is to show you what the clash of rights is - in this case the right of a male person to have his identity validated in all circumstances, Vs the right of a female person to have same sex care)
Thank you. You have explained this very well indeed and I actually agree with you. Sorry for my ignorance.
No worries. It’s a fraught debate and there is misrepresentation and opportunism on all sides of it, and it’s not easy to get a handle on what’s actually at stake because words are used to mean different things by different “factions”. Thanks for engaging in good faith, there’s not a lot of it about, as you can probably see.
I want to say live and let live. I treat everyone as I find with equal respect and reverence. I was in the company of new people who knew a good friend of mine recently . On the journey home he said that this huge bald bloke with a beard who had been in our presence all evening was born a female and did I realise.
I said I did not realise and said good luck to her if she is now happy. For all I knew she was a man. I don’t know if she had changed organs and it was none of my business if she was now happy in the right body. It is of no concern to anyone but her.
Thank you for your honesty.
The reason your experiences are not pertinent to the debate is this:
Trans organisations and charities are pushing the idea that the only thing necessary for someone to be seen as having become a member of the opposite sex is a self declared assertion, and that that assertion should suffice. No operations, no hormones necessary.
Humans cant actually change sex, but you’re right; there’s no harm most of the time in people living their lives in a way that corresponds to their own idea of what it is to be a member of the opposite sex.
The issue arises when sex matters.
Here’s what I mean. You meet a male person at a festival, wearing a dress, and correctly recognise that how that male person presents is no harm to you, and so you accept that some men wear dresses, and sometimes believe themselves to be women. That’s not in dispute by anyone aside from the most rabid right wing bigot.
But the issue would be this; let’s say your mother requires intimate care as she gets older. For her safety and dignity, she would like her care to be carried out by a female career, and you presumably would support her in that.
If an organisation assigned a male person who believes himself to be a woman to be an appropriate person to provide intimate care (as has actual;y happened when organisations started designing policies based on Stonewall’s guidelines), would you consider that to be fine, or would you take issue? (and if you think it’s fine, while I disagree, that’s up to you. My aim here is to show you what the clash of rights is - in this case the right of a male person to have his identity validated in all circumstances, Vs the right of a female person to have same sex care)
So the whole shooting match is because you don't want your old mums arse wiped when she's in the care home by a transwoman. Jesus Christ. Have you any idea how weak and thin that "point" is?
I see it as one way of explaining what could be a problem. Do you want him to do a list?
Thank you for your honesty.
The reason your experiences are not pertinent to the debate is this:
Trans organisations and charities are pushing the idea that the only thing necessary for someone to be seen as having become a member of the opposite sex is a self declared assertion, and that that assertion should suffice. No operations, no hormones necessary.
Humans cant actually change sex, but you’re right; there’s no harm most of the time in people living their lives in a way that corresponds to their own idea of what it is to be a member of the opposite sex.
The issue arises when sex matters.
Here’s what I mean. You meet a male person at a festival, wearing a dress, and correctly recognise that how that male person presents is no harm to you, and so you accept that some men wear dresses, and sometimes believe themselves to be women. That’s not in dispute by anyone aside from the most rabid right wing bigot.
But the issue would be this; let’s say your mother requires intimate care as she gets older. For her safety and dignity, she would like her care to be carried out by a female career, and you presumably would support her in that.
If an organisation assigned a male person who believes himself to be a woman to be an appropriate person to provide intimate care (as has actual;y happened when organisations started designing policies based on Stonewall’s guidelines), would you consider that to be fine, or would you take issue? (and if you think it’s fine, while I disagree, that’s up to you. My aim here is to show you what the clash of rights is - in this case the right of a male person to have his identity validated in all circumstances, Vs the right of a female person to have same sex care)
So the whole shooting match is because you don't want your old mums arse wiped when she's in the care home by a transwoman. Jesus Christ. Have you any idea how weak and thin that "point" is?
I see it as one way of explaining what could be a problem. Do you want him to do a list?
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:52 pm
Seems to me that the blockers are just the start of a conveyor belt of 'treatment'.
I think parents should authorise treatment as it could be a phase a youngster could be going through.
Parents don’t have the right to decide that their children’s potential to have children can be taken away on the basis of regressive ideas about some personality traits being inappropriate for their sex.
This isn’t difficult.
Not sure whether it adds to the debate or not - but:
"Can you get a tattoo at 17 in UK?
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal for people under the age of 18 to get a tattoo. This legislation was brought in under the Tattooing Of Minors Act 1969. This is the case even if the minor is accompanied by their parents."
So it seems that parents are not even allowed, by law, to "allow" their children to have a not particularly easily reversed skin mark. If as a society we've decided that you really do have to be 18 in order to decide what to put on/in your skin, it does seem surprising that a permanent change to a child's body is OK.
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:17 pm
I guess for a decent sex change, its time sensitive?
There’s no such thing as a sex change; there are operations intended to surgically alter a body to alleviate a patient’s distress with their sexed body. These interventions (and hormonal treatments) don’t actually change sex, because that is impossible.
The time sensitivity is related to “passing”; in males in particular, puberty will make it very difficult to ever read as the opposite sex. However, early interventions using puberty blockers then cross sex hormones drastically impact on an individual’s sexual development and fertility, potentially making it impossible for them to ever orgasm, conceive a child or experience any sexual pleasure.
(Transitioning later can retain *some* sexual function)
I think parents should authorise treatment as it could be a phase a youngster could be going through.
Parents don’t have the right to decide that their children’s potential to have children can be taken away on the basis of regressive ideas about some personality traits being inappropriate for their sex.
This isn’t difficult.
Not sure whether it adds to the debate or not - but:
"Can you get a tattoo at 17 in UK?
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal for people under the age of 18 to get a tattoo. This legislation was brought in under the Tattooing Of Minors Act 1969. This is the case even if the minor is accompanied by their parents."
So it seems that parents are not even allowed, by law, to "allow" their children to have a not particularly easily reversed skin mark. If as a society we've decided that you really do have to be 18 in order to decide what to put on/in your skin, it does seem surprising that a permanent change to a child's body is OK.
The relevant factor here is the concepts we teach children, how we teach them to model the world.
Current progressive models of how to teach children about boys and girls and about gender is to teach young children that whether they are a boy or a girl is about how they feel, not about the type of body they have.
Can you see how even when taught with good intentions, it reinforces the regressive idea that an effeminate male child might actually be a girl? (And do you see how such a model of the world might put children who would otherwise grow up to be gay at risk)
Out of morbid curiosity I once ready up on what reassignment surgery really entails. I wish I hadn't. I cannot begin to imagine the state of someone's mind to want to have that inflicted upon their body.
Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:49 pm
Out of morbid curiosity I once ready up on what reassignment surgery really entails. I wish I hadn't. I cannot begin to imagine the state of someone's mind to want to have that inflicted upon their body.
It’s worth looking up, just to understand the pathway young kids who would grow up to be healthy gay adults are put on by well meaning adults who have been convinced that some children’s personalities can be inappropriate for their sex.
Even the most high profile cases are f***ing grim. See how Jazz Jennings has been left butchered, infertile and unable to experience sexual development having his identity reframed as “asexual”
Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:49 pm
Out of morbid curiosity I once ready up on what reassignment surgery really entails. I wish I hadn't. I cannot begin to imagine the state of someone's mind to want to have that inflicted upon their body.
There was a documentary on this subject matter years ago and it is quite detailed especially that they retain the manhood and fold it inwards etc . Then apparently in places like Turkey and Thailand they do a this and other surgery like buttock fillers , breast implants and teeth at cheap rates . However all I have heard recently is people being rushed to NHS hospitals on return due to infections and needing corrective procedures. I don’t know what female to male involves down below but they obviously have Major procedures removing things , equally horrific. Then again I would imagine not everyone gors the whole way having surgery and live as a different sex quite happily.
Parents don’t have the right to decide that their children’s potential to have children can be taken away on the basis of regressive ideas about some personality traits being inappropriate for their sex.
This isn’t difficult.
Not sure whether it adds to the debate or not - but:
"Can you get a tattoo at 17 in UK?
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal for people under the age of 18 to get a tattoo. This legislation was brought in under the Tattooing Of Minors Act 1969. This is the case even if the minor is accompanied by their parents."
So it seems that parents are not even allowed, by law, to "allow" their children to have a not particularly easily reversed skin mark. If as a society we've decided that you really do have to be 18 in order to decide what to put on/in your skin, it does seem surprising that a permanent change to a child's body is OK.
The relevant factor here is the concepts we teach children, how we teach them to model the world.
Current progressive models of how to teach children about boys and girls and about gender is to teach young children that whether they are a boy or a girl is about how they feel, not about the type of body they have.
Can you see how even when taught with good intentions, it reinforces the regressive idea that an effeminate male child might actually be a girl? (And do you see how such a model of the world might put children who would otherwise grow up to be gay at risk)
Absolutely. My own nephew is a gay, and growing up was very "effeminate". He loved ballet and art and fancied boys and eschewed "boy" stuff like sports and beating people up and fancying girls. I suspect that had my brother and his partner been of a certain mindset, they might have suggested to him, however innocently, that maybe deep down he was a girl, seeing as how he loved "girly" stuff.
Instead, they loved him (as we all do) and they taught him that he's loved whoever he fancies, and can do whatever he wants without worrying whether his interests aligned with any stereotypes. He's very happy with his lot (and is a quite brilliant designer to boot)
Female to male involves removing flesh and muscle tissue from the forearm or thigh to be fashioned into the rough shape of a penis. It involves horrendous scarring and leaves the “donor” area looking like it has been subject to cruel and unusual torture.
Horrifically, terrifyingly, but predictably, these surgeries are fetishised and framed as aspiration on trans reddits.
Interestingly, it is female people who believe they are trans who are most conditioned to seek surgery to have mastectomies and “bottom surgery”. You’ll note that “trans men” are often photographed topless (how novel - women photographed topless) to show off their scars. While elsewhere, the discourse around adult males who claim to be women is about how their penises are no barrier to being women.
It’s a tale as old as time as soon as you use clear language: men are fine as they are, women have to take drastic steps in order to belong.
Looking forward to Max coming along to substantively address the issues I outline (or claim I hate trans people, hmmm I wonder which one he’ll go for,it’s a mystery etc)
Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 4:49 pm
Out of morbid curiosity I once ready up on what reassignment surgery really entails. I wish I hadn't. I cannot begin to imagine the state of someone's mind to want to have that inflicted upon their body.
A colleague of mine's daughter (or son now) has been through this. I had absolutely no idea what was involved until it was graphically explained to me. I suspect our reactions were similar.
My colleague is still struggling to come to terms with his daughters decision almost a year on from surgery. As a bloke in his mid 50's the whole thing has blown his family apart with his wife and other son being 100% opposed whilst he's trying to maintain a positive supportive relationship with her.
Being a father to two boys (now 17 and 23) as they're growing up you have thoughts about their sexuality as they grew older - both Mrs FTC and I were really comfortable with either being homosexual as long as they were happy and certain that was their orientation. However, I'd freely admit that I'd really struggle to deal with either wanting to change sex (putting aside a base instinct that this isn't really possible). Primarily I suspect due to a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject.
