Independent Leyton Orient Forum

greyhound wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 10:29 pm ask Starmer.
he thinks that 1 in every thousand woman have a penis.

Laugh all you want but Keith has a reputation for forensic examination, so if anyone is in a position to call this it's him..

This debate could go on forever, for and against (yada yada yada) but nobody is talking about the elephant in the room.

You're on a night out and you've had a few sherbets and you pull a stunning bird (say a high 8), you then get back to her place and find out she's packing a meaty bed snake, Would you carry on?

Do you shout and cry fraud or do you knuckle down and explore like Columbus?

Would love to hear you genuine responses.

What would you do Andy?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ts-protest

Activists block film screening

Censorship wont help them in the long run

The sub headline says this:

“Adult Human Female, which asserts that women are defined solely by biological sex, stopped after activists block entrances”

The central sleight of hand of the trans rights movement is framing “the word woman inherently and necessarily describes female people, and female people are entitled to a word to define themselves” in a way that acts as if it is reductive to recognise that humans come in two types, male and female. It then implies that opposition to trans activism seeks to define women as nothing *more* than their reproductive organs.
(this is by conflating a necessary condition; “women are the type of human that, all being well, produces eggs and can bear young” with “TERFs think women are nothing more than baby making machines”)

A good question to ask is if you’re *not* using sex (or “biological sex”) to define the categories “men” and “women”, then what are you using to define the categories?
The reason I went from many years ago happily calling Frank Maloney “she” and calling out “bigotry” in those who (correctly) noted that Frank was having some issues, is because nobody actually has an alternative definition of “woman” that isn’t sexist or reductive.

Eg: the irony of “TERFs reduce women to their genitals!” being said by someone who happily accepts Eddie Izzard as a woman because he puts on lipstick and a dress and says he’s one.

It’s also the reason why the right wing have muscled in on this as an open goal. Left wing gender critical feminists (or, perhaps more acccurately, second wave feminists) and right wing anti-abortionists both know that women are female; the feminists think it’s important to know that in order to protect their rights; the right wing religious/republican/culture war grifters etc think it’s important to know that because of who they aim to exploit.

Anyway, don’t want to get dragged into another tedious go round on it. Just thought that that use of language in that headline (and throughout the article) is interesting in what it omits. I’d be interested in what anyone curious but undecided thinks.

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:30 am
Anyway, don’t want to get dragged into another tedious go round on it.

You've changed.

I said I don’t want to, not that it’s not incredibly likely that I’ll be here red faced at 5pm having done nothing all day except express annoyance at MB Gold

Is the documentary worth watching?

Noticing more and more articles about Trans in papers like The Mail. It'll definitely be an issue the right exploit.

I was initially sceptical that this issue could be effectively weaponised in an election setting, but there is some emerging evidence that "Stevenage Women" (the archetypal target voter for Labour to win a GE) views Starmer/Labour in less favourable light due to their perceived/actual reluctance/inability to describe a woman. You can therefore expect to see issues like this increasingly featured in the press.

It's clear already that the run up to the next GE is going to be a grotesque hyper-culture war assault. For the Tories it's pretty much their only chance, and Labour appear to have arrived at the conclusion that they may just have to fight as dirty.

So don't go holding your breath for any real policy from either party, instead expect lots of muck slinging about which one is most in love with rapists, people smugglers, paedophiles, immigrants, scroungers etc.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 9:24 am Is the documentary worth watching?

Noticing more and more articles about Trans in papers like The Mail. It'll definitely be an issue the right exploit.

I haven’t seen it so I don’t know what aspects it focuses on but from what I can gather, it’s a documentary made by the feminist/left wing opposition to trans activism/ideology, so probably worth watching if you want an overview on what the substance of it all is, but without reading badly structured essays by me

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 9:34 am I was initially sceptical that this issue could be effectively weaponised in an election setting, but there is some emerging evidence that "Stevenage Women" (the archetypal target voter for Labour to win a GE) views Starmer/Labour in less favourable light due to their perceived/actual reluctance/inability to describe a woman. You can therefore expect to see issues like this increasingly featured in the press.

It's clear already that the run up to the next GE is going to be a grotesque hyper-culture war assault. For the Tories it's pretty much their only chance, and Labour appear to have arrived at the conclusion that they may just have to fight as dirty.

So don't go holding your breath for any real policy from either party, instead expect lots of muck slinging about which one is most in love with rapists, people smugglers, paedophiles, immigrants, scroungers etc.

Yes, basically Tories will use this as a gotcha, even though it was Theresa May who was fully committed to delivering self ID.
Labour has already shot themselves in the foot over this though - they over committed to it, and were just as guilty of failing to foresee predictable consequences as the SNP, and by back tracking to a more moderate, vague position, they’ve found that they’ve pissed off all sides.

I do think that seeing it all as “culture war” stuff misses the point of the potential impact on voters though; when an MP will not admit that a male convincted rapist is male, and won’t refer to him as “he”, it pretty much suggests that any truths are ignorable, which isn’t a great look. It’s one thing to do a courtesy to mate who comes out as trans and agree to refer to him as a woman to be kind, but that doesn’t really scale up, and doesn’t lend itself to policy about the basis on which a person can assert that people should refer to him as, and see him as, a woman.

Oh totally. "How can you trust Labour with the economy if they're not even honest about what a women is?" - That will be the standard one-liner quip used in media rounds and televised debates which will lodge firmly in the minds of typical voters.

“The party that says that this is a woman (photo of Bryson, or Karen White) also says that this is a prime minister (photo of Keir Starmer)”

You can’t blame the tories for exploiting it when they do, since at best, most left leaning men just won’t think about it too much because developing a position on it comes with a social cost

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:57 am I said I don’t want to, not that it’s not incredibly likely that I’ll be here red faced at 5pm having done nothing all day except express annoyance at MB Gold

Not biting. I have no wish to cause you further distress.

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 9:58 am Oh totally. "How can you trust Labour with the economy if they're not even honest about what a women is?" - That will be the standard one-liner quip used in media rounds and televised debates which will lodge firmly in the minds of typical voters.

It's lucky the voters are so thick they will swallow that one.

An easy rebuttal would be to point to Trussonomics and explain why the Tories have ruined the economy.

The far left here wont dare watch this

As opening scenes go, it’s not exactly James Bond is it?

The speaker at 12:28 is Jane Jones, whose views on this most closely align with mine

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:57 am I said I don’t want to, not that it’s not incredibly likely that I’ll be here red faced at 5pm having done nothing all day except express annoyance at MB Gold

Foe is your friend, my Boardin' life is immeasurably improved after making use of it.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 11:34 am The far left here wont dare watch this

Yeah, but it’s catch 22 innit? As soon as you watch it, you’re out of the left

1.5 hours of talking heads, no matter the content, is too long.

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 11:58 am 1.5 hours of talking heads, no matter the content, is too long.

Have you not seen Channel 5's 101 Best Reality TV Moments with such luminaries as Toyah Wilcox and Bob Mills?

“101 best moments” would be very short unless you’re NON BINARY!!!!

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 2:21 pm “101 best moments” would be very short unless you’re NON BINARY!!!!

Have you just did a maths joke?

TRUMP Plumbing wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 2:52 pm

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 2:21 pm “101 best moments” would be very short unless you’re NON BINARY!!!!

Have you just did a maths joke?

I tried