Independent Leyton Orient Forum

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 10:01 am I’m not overlooking or downplaying. Both the comments made are absolutely legitimate obvious topics of discussion regarding an activism that has, in the last half decade, sought to introduce the concept of the “trans child”, along with emotionally manipulative language aimed at preventing scrutiny of claims about trans children:

Caca: it’s a belief system I’m not sure I believe in
Pammy: it can involve mutilation of healthy bodies, with a ruinous impact on sexual function and fertility

Both completely legitimate takes, both of which used clear language which is totally valid considering how trans activism seeks to hide behind unclear language, euphemism, and changing the meaning of words

Talking about lobbing off kids cocks and balls is not tentative language. It's not even true.

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:50 am But the concept of being trans is a belief system, for which there is no evidence. He can doubt that he believes in the “concept” of being trans, without that being a claim that “trans people aren’t real”

You also don’t believe that “trans people are real”, in the same way Caca doesn’t - you don’t believe that whether someone is male or female is a feeling, because you’re not completely stupid.


If he’d said “I don’t think religion is real” you’d understand that straight away as meaning “I don’t believe that religions actually explain the origin of the world, and I don’t believe that adhering to its tenets would lead to eternal life”, and wouldn’t see it as meaning “Christians don’t exist and shouldn’t have rights”

Is homosexuality a belief system?

The chair of mermaids flew her son to Thailand on his sixteenth birthday to have his balls removed and his penis sliced open and inverted into a vagina.

This after he was banned from playing with the toys he liked for years because his father worrried he was gay.

Maybe your ire is better directed towards the activism that thinks that’s OK, than at the guy who was blunt about how he referred to it?

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 10:58 am

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:50 am But the concept of being trans is a belief system, for which there is no evidence. He can doubt that he believes in the “concept” of being trans, without that being a claim that “trans people aren’t real”

You also don’t believe that “trans people are real”, in the same way Caca doesn’t - you don’t believe that whether someone is male or female is a feeling, because you’re not completely stupid.


If he’d said “I don’t think religion is real” you’d understand that straight away as meaning “I don’t believe that religions actually explain the origin of the world, and I don’t believe that adhering to its tenets would lead to eternal life”, and wouldn’t see it as meaning “Christians don’t exist and shouldn’t have rights”

Is homosexuality a belief system?

No. Why on Earth would you ask that?

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 11:00 am The chair of mermaids flew her son to Thailand on his sixteenth birthday to have his balls removed and his penis sliced open and inverted into a vagina.

This after he was banned from playing with the toys he liked for years because his father worrried he was gay.

Maybe your ire is better directed towards the activism that thinks that’s OK, than at the guy who was blunt about how he referred to it?

Some say blunt, others would say wrong. And pick him up for being wrong.

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 11:00 am The chair of mermaids flew her son to Thailand on his sixteenth birthday to have his balls removed and his penis sliced open and inverted into a vagina.

This after he was banned from playing with the toys he liked for years because his father worrried he was gay.

Maybe your ire is better directed towards the activism that thinks that’s OK, than at the guy who was blunt about how he referred to it?

I'm not directing any ire towards Pammy, apologies if it comes across that way.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 11:07 am

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 11:00 am The chair of mermaids flew her son to Thailand on his sixteenth birthday to have his balls removed and his penis sliced open and inverted into a vagina.

This after he was banned from playing with the toys he liked for years because his father worrried he was gay.

Maybe your ire is better directed towards the activism that thinks that’s OK, than at the guy who was blunt about how he referred to it?

Some say blunt, others would say wrong. And pick him up for being wrong.

But as my post said, the chair of the most influential trans kids charity flew her 16 year old son to Thailand to have his testicles removed and penis sliced open and inverted, after spending years banning him from playing from toys they deemed girly. So Pammy was voicing a legitimate concern about something that influential people in trans activism actually do.

Again with the “pretending not to read what someone just wrote thing

Ok, I concede, it was a tentative counterpoint after all.

This is beneath you

So, we're in agreement then. Trans activism is all for lobbing off kids cocks and balls, and that's a bad thing.

Settled?

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 10:53 am

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 10:50 am Unless your mum runs Mermaids

In 2017, Green presented a Ted Talk discussing the journey to get gender-affirming surgery for her eldest child at age 16 in Thailand

True. The video where she laughs about how, because of the puberty blockers, the surgeon didn’t have much penis tissue to work with when making her son a vagina is genuinely chilling.

Yet another good reason to ban puberty blockers.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 11:08 am

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 11:00 am The chair of mermaids flew her son to Thailand on his sixteenth birthday to have his balls removed and his penis sliced open and inverted into a vagina.

This after he was banned from playing with the toys he liked for years because his father worrried he was gay.

Maybe your ire is better directed towards the activism that thinks that’s OK, than at the guy who was blunt about how he referred to it?

I'm not directing any ire towards Pammy, apologies if it comes across that way.

I hate it when my parents fight over me

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... n-of-woman

Struggling to get my head round one of the arguments put forward here that this transwoman would, if no longer recognised as a woman, lose her right to equal pay with men. Wouldn't that, er, no longer be needed? Obviously I can see why a change in how you're recognised would be a big issue for someone but on that point I can't see what the practical detriment would be?

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:06 am https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... n-of-woman

Struggling to get my head round one of the arguments put forward here that this transwoman would, if no longer recognised as a woman, lose her right to equal pay with men. Wouldn't that, er, no longer be needed? Obviously I can see why a change in how you're recognised would be a big issue for someone but on that point I can't see what the practical detriment would be?

Sounds like something daft the friend has blurted out before getting to the actual point about not being allowed in women's toilets.

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:06 am https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... n-of-woman

Struggling to get my head round one of the arguments put forward here that this transwoman would, if no longer recognised as a woman, lose her right to equal pay with men. Wouldn't that, er, no longer be needed? Obviously I can see why a change in how you're recognised would be a big issue for someone but on that point I can't see what the practical detriment would be?

Concerns like this emerge from the way that the discourse around the issue take place online, away from geographical concerns. Basically, in the US there is a legitimate concern by trans activists that losing/not having the legal status of having changed sex actually does strip them of some specific protections, because they’ve been reliant on being protected in law as women (ie, that being treated badly would be actionable because they would be being treated badly *as a woman*) because there aren’t/weren’t specific legal protections for being transgender as the equivalent of a protected characteristic.

In the U.K., the gender recognition act, and the protected characteristic of gender reassignment does indeed ensure that male people who identify as women can’t be treated detrimentally based on that. A male person who declared a trans identity and who then was paid less than a non-trans male would have a field day in court and lawyers would be rubbing their hands together at the prospect

my understanding, in laypersons terms, is that in some parts of the US, for example, to take a blatant/extreme example, this would happen:

A company fires a male person who comes out as trans. The trans person would be able to take action on the basis that the company has treated a woman unfairly - the trans person is reliant on being legally a woman to be able to claim discrimination.

While in the U.K., if the same thing occurred, the employee fired for being trans would be able to cite *trans status* as the source of the unfair discrimination, not “being a woman”

On today of all days, we should ask ourselves; What is a woman?

Someone who identifies as a woman, is the only answer you get from trans activists

The Cass report, finally due out tomorrow, is expected - surprise surprise - to conclude that it’s not a great idea to reinforce the delusions of mentally ill children who have been brought up within an ideology that’s belief based and not reality based, and to block their puberty and put them on a pathway to infertility, inability to experience orgasm and lifelong medication. Who would’ve thought it?

Cass Pennant sticking his oar in with another unqualified opinion won't help anything.

CEB wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:23 pm The Cass report, finally due out tomorrow, is expected - surprise surprise - to conclude that it’s not a great idea to reinforce the delusions of mentally ill children who have been brought up within an ideology that’s belief based and not reality based, and to block their puberty and put them on a pathway to infertility, inability to experience orgasm and lifelong medication. Who would’ve thought it?

Think you’ll find….

Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:23 pm That's the whole point of puberty blockers, which despite all the worried wailing, is the only treatment available to under 16's. They aren't completely without risk but it is a reversible treatment.

Edited

You've won this point and probably most of the debate, time to move on.

Fair enough

Look forward reading the Cass report, wonder if it will really change much though? Society seems determined to stick with the ideology.