The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
There's a point where basic human decency kicks in, or should kick in.
If you see someone in a wheelchair presumably you don't go "Oh you're a cripple" just because you consider it factually correct?
You've written a wall of text but haven't actually answered the most basic question which is why, given a choice between simply being decent, or causing someone some degree of distress, would you choose to act that way?
It's baffling.
If you see someone in a wheelchair presumably you don't go "Oh you're a cripple" just because you consider it factually correct?
You've written a wall of text but haven't actually answered the most basic question which is why, given a choice between simply being decent, or causing someone some degree of distress, would you choose to act that way?
It's baffling.
neil1jnr said:
I have met many trangenders and I have yet to meet one that I didn't automatically know what sex they were at birth.
This old chestnut. I would imagine you have probably met, or at least walked straight past without another glance, some transgender people without realising it.
So, really, you feel you have a 100% success rate in detecting people who you detect. It's like the police saying that, of the people who they have detected speeding, they have a 100% success rate in detecting they are speeding.
Incidentally, I have a (biological) female friend who looks a little blokey who on occasions tells people she is a post-op TG just for s
ts and giggles.An article posted today on Satirical website "NewsThump" seems rather apt.
article said:
“It’s my opinion” not the bullet-proof defence Karen thinks it is
Something having an opinion doesn’t absolve it from criticism, according to reports emerging this morning.
Karen Smith, 29, faced a barrage of criticism on Facebook today after suggesting that immigrants are “only in the UK for free stuff and don’t contribute a bloody thing”.
After being shown evidence proving that immigrants actually bring a net benefit to the UK, the USA and pretty much any other nation that allows immigration, Karen fired back with, “Whatever. It’s my opinion.”
“And they’re still being MEAN and keep telling me I’m wrong using facts to support their point,” grumped Karen, who has asked to see a manager nineteen times in the last six months.
“I told them it’s my opinion. That should let me off the hook. That’s the rule. End of,” continued Karen, whose idea of an exotic meal is nachos.
However, those exposed to Karen’s opinions politely explained that this most definitely isn’t the ‘end of’ it.
“Your opinion is wrong,” countered Hayley Rice, who saw Karen’s comment and responded in kind. “Demonstrably, provably wrong. Just because you believe something, doesn’t make it right. Just look at the Scientologists.
“If your opinion is based on a blatant lie that someone told you, then that opinion is wrong. Some people are of the opinion that black people are lesser beings because they are black. That opinion is also wrong, by any scientific measure, and also fking horrible.”
Karen countered “Oh, that’s so typical of the leftists. You’re all bullying me just because you don’t like the truth. I demand to speak to a Facebook manager.”
https://newsthump.com/2019/01/17/its-my-opinion-no...Something having an opinion doesn’t absolve it from criticism, according to reports emerging this morning.
Karen Smith, 29, faced a barrage of criticism on Facebook today after suggesting that immigrants are “only in the UK for free stuff and don’t contribute a bloody thing”.
After being shown evidence proving that immigrants actually bring a net benefit to the UK, the USA and pretty much any other nation that allows immigration, Karen fired back with, “Whatever. It’s my opinion.”
“And they’re still being MEAN and keep telling me I’m wrong using facts to support their point,” grumped Karen, who has asked to see a manager nineteen times in the last six months.
“I told them it’s my opinion. That should let me off the hook. That’s the rule. End of,” continued Karen, whose idea of an exotic meal is nachos.
However, those exposed to Karen’s opinions politely explained that this most definitely isn’t the ‘end of’ it.
“Your opinion is wrong,” countered Hayley Rice, who saw Karen’s comment and responded in kind. “Demonstrably, provably wrong. Just because you believe something, doesn’t make it right. Just look at the Scientologists.
“If your opinion is based on a blatant lie that someone told you, then that opinion is wrong. Some people are of the opinion that black people are lesser beings because they are black. That opinion is also wrong, by any scientific measure, and also f
king horrible.”Karen countered “Oh, that’s so typical of the leftists. You’re all bullying me just because you don’t like the truth. I demand to speak to a Facebook manager.”
neil1jnr said:
For the record I am not as naïve as you may think I am on the topic, I didn't begin the belittling and frankly it ads nothing to the conversation apart from diluting your points of view from mat perspective.
I have nothing at hand for you to read in regard to links to the sources of material I have read online, or books I have read at home, I don't save them for situations like this (or remember books title or author as I read very often), nor am I going to just pull any random link off Google to try and back up my point of view for now.
However, I will add this:
XX- Female, XY - Male
Biological science proves that humans are born either male or female based on the chromosomes (I appreciate there are anomalies). Every male or female person is different, in respect to how they feel, how masculine or feminine they feel, in respect to what their individual personalities are. This does not change the fact that they can only be male or female. A man for example, that feels like he is female, wants to be referred to as female and identifies as female is still male. It's a fallacy for them to say otherwise.
Now, why should I refer to a biological male as a 'she', just because he want to be a woman, or feel like a woman? If biological man tells me he is non-binary and wants to be referred to by *insert made up pronoun here*, should I have to play along with what he believes he is, regardless if I believe that it is nonsensical? Someone whom identifies neither as male or female are delusional, regardless of what they feel, they are still male or female.
I find it quite astounding that my point of view, based on science and personal principle, is being mocked.
If anyone wants to reply like an adult and rationalise their point of view then that would be appreciated.
It's a shame you can't come up with anything.I have nothing at hand for you to read in regard to links to the sources of material I have read online, or books I have read at home, I don't save them for situations like this (or remember books title or author as I read very often), nor am I going to just pull any random link off Google to try and back up my point of view for now.
However, I will add this:
XX- Female, XY - Male
Biological science proves that humans are born either male or female based on the chromosomes (I appreciate there are anomalies). Every male or female person is different, in respect to how they feel, how masculine or feminine they feel, in respect to what their individual personalities are. This does not change the fact that they can only be male or female. A man for example, that feels like he is female, wants to be referred to as female and identifies as female is still male. It's a fallacy for them to say otherwise.
Now, why should I refer to a biological male as a 'she', just because he want to be a woman, or feel like a woman? If biological man tells me he is non-binary and wants to be referred to by *insert made up pronoun here*, should I have to play along with what he believes he is, regardless if I believe that it is nonsensical? Someone whom identifies neither as male or female are delusional, regardless of what they feel, they are still male or female.
I find it quite astounding that my point of view, based on science and personal principle, is being mocked.
If anyone wants to reply like an adult and rationalise their point of view then that would be appreciated.
Biological science does not prove that, it recognises a number of combinations, and that is before we get into study comparing trans and cis brain function - here's a link which discusses chromosomes - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/think-gend...
I am not mocking your opinion, but I see no evidence that it is based on science.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: There's a point where basic human decency kicks in, or should kick in.
If you see someone in a wheelchair presumably you don't go "Oh you're a cripple" just because you consider it factually correct?
You've written a wall of text but haven't actually answered the most basic question which is why, given a choice between simply being decent, or causing someone some degree of distress, would you choose to act that way?
It's baffling.
Referring to a biological male, by using 'he' when he wants to be referred to as 'she' is being decent. If it causes distress that's their problem. I genuinely couldn't care less. The clip recently with the man demanding to be called a woman, when he is clearly a man, and getting wound up about it is his own fault. I applaud the man behind the counter that continues to call him sir.If you see someone in a wheelchair presumably you don't go "Oh you're a cripple" just because you consider it factually correct?
You've written a wall of text but haven't actually answered the most basic question which is why, given a choice between simply being decent, or causing someone some degree of distress, would you choose to act that way?
It's baffling.
I believe someone on a wheelchair would be classed as disabled, not a cripple, although like you say it is factually correct, I am not a complete d
head like you are trying to make out, however your making a proper fool of yourself there. For someone that appears to be an advocate of human decency you don't lead by example that's for sure. Oh, and by the way, the analogy as a whole is terrible.bhstewie said:
hstewie said:neil1jnr said:
Referring to a biological male, by using 'he' when he wants to be referred to as 'she' is being decent. If it causes distress that's their problem. I genuinely couldn't care less.
Thought so.Thanks for clearing it up.
_dobbo_ said:
neil1jnr said:
I am not a complete dhead like you are trying to make out
Nobody is making you out to be anything, you're doing it completely on your own.First off, I've cleared that up for you nicely b
hstewie, nut let's just make sure everyone can see what a proper tosser you are. I am apparently the one that beggars belief for not thinking about feelings, yet you do the exact same thing, I couldn't make this stuff up.care to expand _dobbo_? What is it you disagree with. Are you also in-capable of presenting your own views with any sort of rationale behind them. Or even just have the balls to say what you think? Maybe not, only capable of vague commentary.
Edited by neil1jnr on Thursday 17th January 20:12
xjay1337 said:
Not dismissing anything
One line drive by posts like "you can't change DNA" are extremely dismissive and argumentative as well. But you knew that when you posted it.xjay1337 said:
But the crux is, people have to support anything that makes anyone feel better - where as I don't
Yeah, being kind is such hard work. I hope that if you ever have any issues in your life where you need kindness, acceptance and support, you don't find yourself surrounded by people who don't want to make you feel better.descentia said:
neil1jnr said:
Yes I understand what goes on when transitioning.
To clarify my point, in day to day life, the majority of people assume the sex of other people, it's practical and generally if someone appears to be male or female then they likely are. So if going about my business I have no reason to assume otherwise, I will refer to someone by what I perceive to be their sex. Yes, if a transgender person appears to be a female by my own assumptions then I will refer to them as such. I have met many trangenders and I have yet to meet one that I didn't automatically know what sex they were at birth. So, if doubt crosses my mind, I can either ask them directly what sex they are, depending on situation/circumstance or I can refer to them as what I perceive to be the correct why for their sex.
For example, if someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to have the appearance of a man and I referred to them as male, I'd be embarrassed and apologetic, like any normal human would be. If someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to identify as a man because of 'gender' then I would generally refuse to refer to them as a man if it was obvious to me they were not, based on assumption.
However, I will add this:
XX- Female, XY - Male
Biological science proves that humans are born either male or female based on the chromosomes (I appreciate there are anomalies). Every male or female person is different, in respect to how they feel, how masculine or feminine they feel, in respect to what their individual personalities are. This does not change the fact that they can only be male or female. A man for example, that feels like he is female, wants to be referred to as female and identifies as female is still male. It's a fallacy for them to say otherwise.
Now, why should I refer to a biological male as a 'she', just because he want to be a woman, or feel like a woman? If biological man tells me he is non-binary and wants to be referred to by *insert made up pronoun here*, should I have to play along with what he believes he is, regardless if I believe that it is nonsensical? Someone whom identifies neither as male or female are delusional, regardless of what they feel, they are still male or female.
I find it quite astounding that my point of view, based on science and personal principle, is being mocked.
If anyone wants to reply like an adult and rationalise their point of view then that would be appreciated.
You really need to educate yourself on the facts surrounding chromosomes before stating the simplistic xx and xy argument.To clarify my point, in day to day life, the majority of people assume the sex of other people, it's practical and generally if someone appears to be male or female then they likely are. So if going about my business I have no reason to assume otherwise, I will refer to someone by what I perceive to be their sex. Yes, if a transgender person appears to be a female by my own assumptions then I will refer to them as such. I have met many trangenders and I have yet to meet one that I didn't automatically know what sex they were at birth. So, if doubt crosses my mind, I can either ask them directly what sex they are, depending on situation/circumstance or I can refer to them as what I perceive to be the correct why for their sex.
For example, if someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to have the appearance of a man and I referred to them as male, I'd be embarrassed and apologetic, like any normal human would be. If someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to identify as a man because of 'gender' then I would generally refuse to refer to them as a man if it was obvious to me they were not, based on assumption.
However, I will add this:
XX- Female, XY - Male
Biological science proves that humans are born either male or female based on the chromosomes (I appreciate there are anomalies). Every male or female person is different, in respect to how they feel, how masculine or feminine they feel, in respect to what their individual personalities are. This does not change the fact that they can only be male or female. A man for example, that feels like he is female, wants to be referred to as female and identifies as female is still male. It's a fallacy for them to say otherwise.
Now, why should I refer to a biological male as a 'she', just because he want to be a woman, or feel like a woman? If biological man tells me he is non-binary and wants to be referred to by *insert made up pronoun here*, should I have to play along with what he believes he is, regardless if I believe that it is nonsensical? Someone whom identifies neither as male or female are delusional, regardless of what they feel, they are still male or female.
I find it quite astounding that my point of view, based on science and personal principle, is being mocked.
If anyone wants to reply like an adult and rationalise their point of view then that would be appreciated.
https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/11919/n...
As for your stance on how you would decide what pronouns to use I can give you a recent experience of mine as an example.,,,
I finished the transition process many years ago and my presentation, mannerism and all of what you would regard as the norms of being female don't identify me as anything other than that. However in some circumstances I will meet people who knew before and obviously know or make certain assumptions of my medical history.
With that in mind I was at an event and talking to a couple about a project they were working on when a guy I knew from a very long time ago approached and joined in the conversation. This was someone I knew vaguely from decades ago , not well but I knew what they did. As we talked it became apparent that this guy kept referring to me as he and him so the couple corrected him/They did this numerous times until the guy replied with I knew ..insert former name ...from years back and I'll contimue to call him...insert former name .. as that's how I know them.
Note I haven't had the chance to correct this guy as other people have done it already. and they were as shocked as I was with this guy's stance. Eventually the conversation with the couple reaches a conclusion and saw me agreeing to do some work with them. Then the guy who has decided that he'll use he/him and my former name asks me if I'll be interested in contributing to a project he's putting in place.
Despite all my astonishment with how rude and disrespectful he had just been to in the presence of other people, who incidentally he knew professionally and socially, I didn't tell him to f
k off straight away. Not because I'd even consider for one minute of having anything to do with him but because it clearly wouldn't have mattered how many times I corrected for some reason, ignorance, religion or whatever his opinion and understanding of all things trans was set.So am wondering, Neil, what your decision would have been of how you were going to treat me in that situation ? Where you knew me from before and had since become aware of my transition.
If someone asked to be referred to has female, when they are a male and explains the situation, such as having his disease, then I am totally understanding to it.
Edited by neil1jnr on Thursday 17th January 20:03
neil1jnr said:
Please see in bold where I made sure to add that I am aware of situations, like the syndromes mentioned in your link. I mentioned in other posts also, I have sympathy towards people with chromosome variations, like yourself, and in these cases yes I would use the pronouns you preferred. No problem.
If someone asked to be referred to has female, when they are a male and explains the situation, such as having his disease then I am totally understandable of the situation.
But you know, from the articles you read earlier, that there are a number of recognised biological variances in trans individuals. You should also know that the understanding of this is young, developing, and your simplistic understanding is outdated (and was, by your own admission, never as straight forward XX or XY).If someone asked to be referred to has female, when they are a male and explains the situation, such as having his disease then I am totally understandable of the situation.
So why are those variances not good enough for you, why just chromosomes?
Your position is confused, and also completely impractical because - like I previously pointed out - you have no way of politely verifying the 'biological sex', as you understand it, of the person you are talking to.
desolate said:
Another thing I misunderstood from earlier in the thread.
SelfID in UK law is a case of context matters. In the context of the Gender Recognition Act, it is a proposal to make the changing of peoples (intersex and trans) birth certificates easier. If it happens it won't be something you can just claim one morning, flip and flop as you feel. It is likely it was be an easier to access legal process such as statutory declaration, something that carries criminal and custodial sentences if fraudulent as per perjury law.The other context is with the Equality act 2010. Under this law which has been around for quite some time now the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" is in force as soon as someone undergoes, or proposes to under go the process of gender reassignment. Note to obtain the PC there is no need for a doctors intervention, diagnosis or anything other than self identification. When someone is protected under the PC of gender reassignment they are to be considered and treated as the sex they identify as unless an exclusion can be shown to be a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
To throw in a curve ball the Equality act also has sections that relate to "by association" which in effect means you don't even need to SelfID to be protected. It is just as illegal for someone to discriminate against you because they think your trans or your associated with a trans person.
So yes SelfID is the legal position in the UK except where it is not. Interestingly the very limited circumstances where the GRA takes precedence in the experience of a trans person (pension, retirement age, marriage and death certificates and HMRC records) are quite likely in breach of the equality act. If self ID GRA is not brought into law I can very well see and Equality act challenge being launched.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
An article posted today on Satirical website "NewsThump" seems rather apt.
Oh dear. You can't be serious?article said:
“It’s my opinion” not the bullet-proof defence Karen thinks it is
Something having an opinion doesn’t absolve it from criticism, according to reports emerging this morning.
Karen Smith, 29, faced a barrage of criticism on Facebook today after suggesting that immigrants are “only in the UK for free stuff and don’t contribute a bloody thing”.
After being shown evidence proving that immigrants actually bring a net benefit to the UK, the USA and pretty much any other nation that allows immigration, Karen fired back with, “Whatever. It’s my opinion.”
“And they’re still being MEAN and keep telling me I’m wrong using facts to support their point,” grumped Karen, who has asked to see a manager nineteen times in the last six months.
“I told them it’s my opinion. That should let me off the hook. That’s the rule. End of,” continued Karen, whose idea of an exotic meal is nachos.
However, those exposed to Karen’s opinions politely explained that this most definitely isn’t the ‘end of’ it.
“Your opinion is wrong,” countered Hayley Rice, who saw Karen’s comment and responded in kind. “Demonstrably, provably wrong. Just because you believe something, doesn’t make it right. Just look at the Scientologists.
“If your opinion is based on a blatant lie that someone told you, then that opinion is wrong. Some people are of the opinion that black people are lesser beings because they are black. That opinion is also wrong, by any scientific measure, and also fking horrible.”
Karen countered “Oh, that’s so typical of the leftists. You’re all bullying me just because you don’t like the truth. I demand to speak to a Facebook manager.”
https://newsthump.com/2019/01/17/its-my-opinion-no...Something having an opinion doesn’t absolve it from criticism, according to reports emerging this morning.
Karen Smith, 29, faced a barrage of criticism on Facebook today after suggesting that immigrants are “only in the UK for free stuff and don’t contribute a bloody thing”.
After being shown evidence proving that immigrants actually bring a net benefit to the UK, the USA and pretty much any other nation that allows immigration, Karen fired back with, “Whatever. It’s my opinion.”
“And they’re still being MEAN and keep telling me I’m wrong using facts to support their point,” grumped Karen, who has asked to see a manager nineteen times in the last six months.
“I told them it’s my opinion. That should let me off the hook. That’s the rule. End of,” continued Karen, whose idea of an exotic meal is nachos.
However, those exposed to Karen’s opinions politely explained that this most definitely isn’t the ‘end of’ it.
“Your opinion is wrong,” countered Hayley Rice, who saw Karen’s comment and responded in kind. “Demonstrably, provably wrong. Just because you believe something, doesn’t make it right. Just look at the Scientologists.
“If your opinion is based on a blatant lie that someone told you, then that opinion is wrong. Some people are of the opinion that black people are lesser beings because they are black. That opinion is also wrong, by any scientific measure, and also f
king horrible.”Karen countered “Oh, that’s so typical of the leftists. You’re all bullying me just because you don’t like the truth. I demand to speak to a Facebook manager.”
So you have literally posted exactly what it says on that link which is garbage, it makes no sense, and is likely complete fiction, it isn't relevant to this topic in the slightest.
What was the evidence that Karen was shown that apparently proved her wrong?
I can find plenty to the contrary saying immigration has a net negative fiscal impact in the UK. Although there isn't a single correct answer, I believe from what I have studied that it is likely migrants from European Economic area (EEA) contribute a net positive fiscal impact and non-EEA migrants a net negative fiscal impact. Now that is before considering the number of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers.
Here is a source: https://fullfact.org/immigration/how-immigrants-af...
Also see below:
neil1jnr said:
So you have literally posted exactly what it says on that link which is garbage, it makes no sense, and is likely complete fiction
Wow. A satirical website that posts spoof articles for humour is complete fiction and is made up? Who knew? neil1jnr said:
Oh dear. You can't be serious?
Oh dear. You took it seriously? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff