Independent Leyton Orient Forum

I asked you to specify whether you’d have me use a neutral term, whether to refer to the child as a boy due to the fact that the child is male (a prerequisite for a child to be a “trans girl”) or whether you can demonstrate why my existing position is wrong. You’ve done none, and so can f*** off, and if I refer to the child in the future, I will continue to use neutral terms. If you want to highlight that I’m doing so, knock yourself out.

Disclaimer - I am not well read up, nor am I directly involved in this subject in any way. And I'm pretty sure I've already made this point previously on this thread but now seems a good time to raise it as MBG and CEB hit this juncture.

If someone wishes to be referred to as he or she or they, that's cool, go for it. If I get it wrong, I'll apologise and amend as they prefer. No offence meant, and hopefully none taken.

If someone has a penis, they cannot be a female or a woman. They should not be in women's spaces, be that women's prisons, women's changing rooms or women's sporting events.

CEB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:42 pm I asked you to specify whether you’d have me use a neutral term, whether to refer to the child as a boy due to the fact that the child is male (a prerequisite for a child to be a “trans girl”) or whether you can demonstrate why my existing position is wrong. You’ve done none, and so can f*** off, and if I refer to the child in the future, I will continue to use neutral terms. If you want to highlight that I’m doing so, knock yourself out.

Hang on. I asked you to respect the victims choice. Why is this always got to be about you and your quest for perfect logic. The world isn't like that.

The eff off bit I have reported. If you don't want to debate nicely or don't like the answer, your first port of call is to issue abuse. It is embarrassing for you. Please reflect on how people perceive you. It really doesn't help the position you are advocating.

TRUMP Plumbing wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:52 pm Disclaimer - I am not well read up, nor am I directly involved in this subject in any way. And I'm pretty sure I've already made this point previously on this thread but now seems a good time to raise it as MBG and CEB hit this juncture.

If someone wishes to be referred to as he or she or they, that's cool, go for it. If I get it wrong, I'll apologise and amend as they prefer. No offence meant, and hopefully none taken.

If someone has a penis, they cannot be a female or a woman. They should not be in women's spaces, be that women's prisons, women's changing rooms or women's sporting events.

Don't disagree with any of that. You sure you haven't been reading up on willies, bums, tits and fannies?

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:54 pm

CEB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:42 pm I asked you to specify whether you’d have me use a neutral term, whether to refer to the child as a boy due to the fact that the child is male (a prerequisite for a child to be a “trans girl”) or whether you can demonstrate why my existing position is wrong. You’ve done none, and so can f*** off, and if I refer to the child in the future, I will continue to use neutral terms. If you want to highlight that I’m doing so, knock yourself out.

Hang on. I asked you to respect the victims choice. Why is this always got to be about you and your quest for perfect logic. The world isn't like that.

The eff off bit I have reported. If you don't want to debate nicely or don't like the answer, your first port of call is to issue abuse. It is embarrassing for you. Please reflect on how people perceive you. It really doesn't help the position you are advocating.

I don’t feel any obligation to adopt someone else’s beliefs or language when they are incompatible with my own, in this case in relation to my position that male children are not girls (and that describing them as such is sexist, and harmful when idealogues use acceptance of such as affirmation that hormonal and surgical intervention may be appropriate)
As a compromise, I used neutral terms that aren’t in dispute, and aren’t contradictory to anything - everyone agrees that the murdered child is a child. Omitting mention of the child’s sex is a respectful concession that you zeroed in on.

I suspect that if I referred to the child as a girl, you’d pull me up on my inconsistency.

TRUMP Plumbing wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:52 pm Disclaimer - I am not well read up, nor am I directly involved in this subject in any way. And I'm pretty sure I've already made this point previously on this thread but now seems a good time to raise it as MBG and CEB hit this juncture.

If someone wishes to be referred to as he or she or they, that's cool, go for it. If I get it wrong, I'll apologise and amend as they prefer. No offence meant, and hopefully none taken.

If someone has a penis, they cannot be a female or a woman. They should not be in women's spaces, be that women's prisons, women's changing rooms or women's sporting events.

I’m not 100% in disagreement with you here - and maintaining my own position on preferred pronouns isn’t in every case a demand for nobody to have their own way of navigating the subject (eg - I have no problem with anyone referring to Brianna as a girl)
For clarity - were it not for theese things:
1- the fact that the egregious parts of this activism are reliant on scaling up small, kind concessions on language to make it taboo to distinguish the sexes in places it matters
2- that activists like that daffy queer chaos demon use ‘social transition” as the first step to hormones

I’d also be exactly where you are in terms of how I refer to people. All I can say is that I wrestled with it before deciding that, and made my peace with the fact that it’d put me beyond the pale with some people whose beliefs I respect on most other things.

CEB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 3:05 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:54 pm

CEB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:42 pm I asked you to specify whether you’d have me use a neutral term, whether to refer to the child as a boy due to the fact that the child is male (a prerequisite for a child to be a “trans girl”) or whether you can demonstrate why my existing position is wrong. You’ve done none, and so can f*** off, and if I refer to the child in the future, I will continue to use neutral terms. If you want to highlight that I’m doing so, knock yourself out.

Hang on. I asked you to respect the victims choice. Why is this always got to be about you and your quest for perfect logic. The world isn't like that.

The eff off bit I have reported. If you don't want to debate nicely or don't like the answer, your first port of call is to issue abuse. It is embarrassing for you. Please reflect on how people perceive you. It really doesn't help the position you are advocating.

I don’t feel any obligation to adopt someone else’s beliefs or language when they are incompatible with my own, in this case in relation to my position that male children are not girls (and that describing them as such is sexist, and harmful when idealogues use acceptance of such as affirmation that hormonal and surgical intervention may be appropriate)
As a compromise, I used neutral terms that aren’t in dispute, and aren’t contradictory to anything - everyone agrees that the murdered child is a child. Omitting mention of the child’s sex is a respectful concession that you zeroed in on.

I suspect that if I referred to the child as a girl, you’d pull me up on my inconsistency.

You could you could compromise further by saying something like "Her names Miss X she thinks she's a girl"

Perhaps you’re not aware, but ‘she thinks she’s a girl” would be considered a clumsy, borderline transphobic way to discuss a male child who identifies as a girl.

CEB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 3:18 pm Perhaps you’re not aware, but ‘she thinks she’s a girl” would be considered a clumsy, borderline transphobic way to discuss a male child who identifies as a girl.

I know. I was being satirical.

Going right back to the start of this thread to highlight an exchange way before I got involved. Have not quoted because I don’t want to tag him after taking issue on the Dahl thread too, but this exchange is very telling, and representative of how this thread was going when those supporting trans activism here thought they could just be condescending. I went back because I was intrigued to see how this was discussed while the idea of a scandal was still being utterly dismissed as right wing fearmongering.


“So how do you explain the explosion in referrals to this clinic? Believe it's gone from double figures to four figures a year.”


“I would think mainly that in general people are becoming much more accepting that it's an issue that needs support and the idea and the idea that it's best to tell your kid to shiut up and sign them up for a rugby club is slowly on the decline. “




This (which should be seen together with the same poster’s later claim that a young gender dysphoric male he knows “comes over as female in every way”) is very telling of the casually formed opinions of some of the people who were shouting loudest at the start.

Presumably (because it’s the only way his point makes sense) in the hypothetical example, Mick is referring to a male child, and sees two possible paths, one good, one bad :

1: a male child displaying gender non conforming traits needs support from a clinic that pathologises gender non conformity

2: a male child displaying gender non conforming traits might be pushed to conform to gender by being pressured into stereotypically masculine pursuits such as a rugby club


He doesn’t entertain the idea that there is a third option, despite the fact that the third option is, to most people, the most obvious, most desirable pathway:

3: recognise that a male child who doesn’t conform to gender isn’t actually doing anything that’s worrying at all, and is in fact simply conveying their personality, and that there are no traits or interests a male child can have that are not appropriate for male children, but would be appropriate for female children.

Recognising (3) as the best option would then mean that any parents turning up at a clinic worried about their child would be told in no uncertain terms that their child is fine. It would also mean that the rugby club’s leadership would tell the parents to grow the hell up and let their kid be who he wants to be.

The biggest red flag in Mick’s hypothetical is something that should be apparent to any one even thinking about discussing this stuff, much less doing so with an air of certainty; any parent who thinks a male child should display traditional masculinity (eg by being sent to a rugby club) is self evidently teaching a child that their personality is not appropriate for their sex. And that is what gender dysphoria is; the idea that their sense of self isn’t appropriate for their sex.


Now, I would genuinely be very, very interested to hear an argument as to why Mick’s earlier post is more progressive and informed than my response. The chance of getting it from Mick himself is probably less than 1%, but I wonder if anyone else can.

Are there people who are convinced they're trans regardless of typical sexed interests? Those that 'just know' they're in the 'wrong body'

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 9:30 pm Are there people who are convinced they're trans regardless of typical sexed interests? Those that 'just know' they're in the 'wrong body'

Yes, though your wording isn’t how they would say it, nor how I would put it (though you’re pretty much there)

First of all, pretty much all the high profile men who came out as trans until a few years ago had lived most of their life with typical sexed interests - Bruce Jenner and Frank Maloney being two obvious ones. Probably both of those (and almost certainly Frank Maloney) would have used “wrong body” language to describe their late in life epiphany.

But the thing to understand about modern trans activism - and why & how it can claim that there’s such a thing as a “woman’s penis” is because of how the academia from which trans activism arrived, fully formed, is rooted in queer theory, which is itself a batshit crazy movement based on post modernism. Central to that (simplifying slightly) is the idea that it is language that constructs reality, and therefore how we choose to frame our reality becomes the reality. So redefining “woman” as “an indefinable sense of self we call woman for arbitrary reasons, that nevertheless some male people want in on”, (with “female” children being nothing more than fusty old bigots making guesses based on genitals) and then believing it to be true, actually shapes society differently, according to that worldview.

It sounds nuts, but that’s exactly why we have Labour MP’s unable to call a male rapist a man, or even a male.

Well despite the recent bad press their ideas seem to have stuck. I cant see it going away. Chance you could end up on the wrong side of history?

I have zero interest in that.

CEB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:16 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 9:30 pm Are there people who are convinced they're trans regardless of typical sexed interests? Those that 'just know' they're in the 'wrong body'

Yes, though your wording isn’t how they would say it, nor how I would put it (though you’re pretty much there)

First of all, pretty much all the high profile men who came out as trans until a few years ago had lived most of their life with typical sexed interests - Bruce Jenner and Frank Maloney being two obvious ones. Probably both of those (and almost certainly Frank Maloney) would have used “wrong body” language to describe their late in life epiphany.

But the thing to understand about modern trans activism - and why & how it can claim that there’s such a thing as a “woman’s penis” is because of how the academia from which trans activism arrived, fully formed, is rooted in queer theory, which is itself a batshit crazy movement based on post modernism. Central to that (simplifying slightly) is the idea that it is language that constructs reality, and therefore how we choose to frame our reality becomes the reality. So redefining “woman” as “an indefinable sense of self we call woman for arbitrary reasons, that nevertheless some male people want in on”, (with “female” children being nothing more than fusty old bigots making guesses based on genitals) and then believing it to be true, actually shapes society differently, according to that worldview.

It sounds nuts, but that’s exactly why we have Labour MP’s unable to call a male rapist a man, or even a male.

What about Elliot Fletcher & His Male Womb ? He's not old either

The clip is of Jordan Peterson by the way

I know I'm still on a learning curve will all this but I'm 100% sure about the above clip. What he is saying is because he finds everything confusing to him then anyone who doesn't identify with being male or female should just shut up, not bother him and get a life that he approves of.

I'm on the opposite side to him. I want to understand and will accept anyone that wants to live their own life in the way it makes then happy that is not at the expense of others. I don't include the views of Peterson as a factor to be taken into consideration.

Why, instead of engaging with what I said, are you posting a clip of a person who I think is a monumental bell end, and arguing against his point, as if you expect me to be aligned with him?

As I said yesterday, if you want to participate, actually recognise that some people are more informed than you.

CEB wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:51 am Why, instead of engaging with what I said, are you posting a clip of a person who I think is a monumental bell end, and arguing against his point, as if you expect me to be aligned with him?

As I said yesterday, if you want to participate, actually recognise that some people are more informed than you.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that this is your personal thread and I need to be aware of who you think is a monumental ball end. The post wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular so I had no expectation of you being aligned to Peterson or not. Once again I have tried and failed to engage. I took on board what you said yesterday about posting a without comment. Any chance you could take on board a little of what I said by not belittling anything that isn't up to your all knowing understanding.

I tried reading through this thread but found some of the posts condescending and at times self righteous, I had to give up. I'll seek understanding elsewhere

You haven’t tried to engage. You’ve waded into a subject you know absolutely nothing about, with nothing but a link and a highly simplistic take that you’d understand was irrelevant even if you’d simply read *the current page* of this thread.

Yes, Jordan Peterson is a bell end, and his views on this are ill thought out.

Are you aware of the principle that it’s best to argue against the *best*version of an opposing argument? I’ll tell you what, I’ll post a link to two things that will get you up to speed on pretty much what the progressive argument against trans activism is. You read it, then you get back to me.

Or, you could just leave the thread for six months and come back with “hey, have you guys considered that maybe a boy might have the soul of a girl!!!”

CEB wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:55 am You haven’t tried to engage. You’ve waded into a subject you know absolutely nothing about, with nothing but a link and a highly simplistic take that you’d understand was irrelevant even if you’d simply read *the current page* of this thread.

Yes, Jordan Peterson is a bell end, and his views on this are ill thought out.

Are you aware of the principle that it’s best to argue against the *best*version of an opposing argument? I’ll tell you what, I’ll post a link to two things that will get you up to speed on pretty much what the progressive argument against trans activism is. You read it, then you get back to me.

Or, you could just leave the thread for six months and come back with “hey, have you guys considered that maybe a boy might have the soul of a girl!!!”

Whatever

^ ah that genuine, good faith engagement in action.

Looking forward to when you post on page 73 of an Israel-Palestine thread to direct everyone to a link where Noel Edmunds says we should all just get on.

Allow me to intervene with some much needed levity. This episode first aired back in 2005.

CEB wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:55 am I’ll tell you what, I’ll post a link to two things that will get you up to speed on pretty much what the progressive argument against trans activism is. You read it, then you get back to me.

Yes please, put them up.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 9:30 pm Are there people who are convinced they're trans regardless of typical sexed interests? Those that 'just know' they're in the 'wrong body'

Are you seriously suggesting it's not a real thing?

TRUMP Plumbing wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:55 am

CEB wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:55 am I’ll tell you what, I’ll post a link to two things that will get you up to speed on pretty much what the progressive argument against trans activism is. You read it, then you get back to me.

Yes please, put them up.

OK - be warned, they’re written by feminists, and I’m least sure my initial posts here were dismissed out of hand because I’d probably read them on a feminist blog, which is definitely a reasonable thing to do, what with bloody feminists writing opinions