The Gender Non-binary debate.

[xjay1337]

ClockworkCupcake said:

Because leet is a good example of how certain groups have their own words and idioms. Something which you seem to have a problem with. I just thought it a little ironic, that's all.

As for the fact that you haven't heard of a word that is in the dictionary, that's hardly my fault. If you don't understand a word you look it up, you don't reply to the person "talk dumber for me, cos I is fick".

Yes, but find a time where I have ever actually said "leet". I haven't. If someone started using it in a conversation I'd think they were odd.

Likewise I'm not trying to get everyone else to replace the word "skilled" with "leet" cos I'm a sensitive nimby.

[ClockworkCupcake]

xjay1337 said:

Likewise I'm not trying to get everyone else to replace the word "skilled" with "leet" cos I'm a sensitive nimby.

Ah, nimby. That will be one of those words added to the dictionary relatively recently because, you know, language evolves. Interesting etymology (do feel free to look that word up) inasmuch as it started out as an acronym for "Not In My Back Yard" and is often written in capitals as a result.

[gregs656]

xjay1337 said:

Likewise I'm not trying to get everyone else to replace the word "skilled" with "leet" cos I'm a sensitive nimby.

Which words are being replaced? With what?

Synonym . . .

Also, you weren't born with a vocabulary. You learnt all the words you know, some more recently than others. You will continue to learn words throughout your life. That's part of the joy of language.

[hyphen]

"Changing gender set to become easier as 'demeaning' medical checks are reviewed'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/22/changin...

[JagLover]

hyphen said:

"Changing gender set to become easier as 'demeaning' medical checks are reviewed'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/22/changin...

The Sunday Times has more on this.

"changing gender" is changing what gender you are treated as by declaration.

You could still be biological male and then declare yourself female.....and then presumably use the women's changing rooms.

Just goes to show whoever you vote for the government gets in, and inflicts whatever deluded nonsense is the current fad upon the populace.

[ClockworkCupcake]

JagLover said:

You could still be biological male and then declare yourself female.....and then presumably use the women's changing rooms.

Just goes to show whoever you vote for the government gets in, and inflicts whatever deluded nonsense is the current fad upon the populace.

Right.... yes. That's what it's all about. It's about ticking a box to get into the changing rooms.

[p2c]

ClockworkCupcake said:

JagLover said:

You could still be biological male and then declare yourself female.....and then presumably use the women's changing rooms.

Just goes to show whoever you vote for the government gets in, and inflicts whatever deluded nonsense is the current fad upon the populace.

Right.... yes. That's what it's all about. It's about ticking a box to get into the changing rooms.

Quite,

I have already seen information indicating a statutory declaration would be required and making a false statutory declaration is already a criminal offence of perjury and that's before any potential fraud charges get involved. So far from a trivial matter.

[Jonesy23]

You need to dig into some of the campaigners/blue tick accounts on Twitter and other places if you want to see how far down the gender rabbithole things can go.

A lot of the debate is being driven by some people who are - basically - completely mental and have found something new to get attention. They tie themselves into all sorts of knots over preferred pronouns, biology, gender and sexual preference - usually conflating the whole lot - and things get really really messed up.

The real danger is that in being nice and liberal you'll get the genuine cases mixed up with all sorts of others who are misguided or actively abusing the option being made available to them and this will lead to problems for everyone down the line.

And if you think a satuatory declaration is really going to be an impediment to someone abusing a system you really are naïve.

[gregs656]

Jonesy23 said:

The real danger is that in being nice and liberal you'll get the genuine cases mixed up with all sorts of others who are misguided or actively abusing the option being made available to them and this will lead to problems for everyone down the line.

So you think, in principle, that the lives of people who do absolutely nothing wrong should be infringed upon because some people may abuse a system?

That doesn't sound like somewhere I'd like to live.

[ClockworkCupcake]

gregs656 said:

So you think, in principle, that the lives of people who do absolutely nothing wrong should be infringed upon because some people may abuse a system?

Absolutely. We should ban all cars capable of doing over 70mph, and any car that is considered "sporty", and ban all track days. Because, you know, some people break the law by speeding, and track days encourage dangerous driving as the people who do track days will drive like that on public roads too.

Oh.. wait. Sorry, that's bks isn't it.

[Johnnytheboy]

ClockworkCupcake said:

Absolutely. We should ban all cars capable of doing over 70mph, and any car that is considered "sporty", and ban all track days. Because, you know, some people break the law by speeding, and track days encourage dangerous driving as the people who do track days will drive like that on public roads too.

Oh.. wait. Sorry, that's bks isn't it.

Perhaps an analogy would be rather than banning vehicles that are not allowed on motorways, for example pushbikes, we should allow them to decide themselves whether they are in fact a car, and should therefore be allowed to drive down the M4.

[ClockworkCupcake]

Johnnytheboy said:

Perhaps an analogy would be rather than banning vehicles that are not allowed on motorways, for example pushbikes, we should allow them to decide themselves whether they are in fact a car, and should therefore be allowed to drive down the M4.

I was illustrating the idea of putting obstacles in the way people on the grounds that it might discourage lawbreakers from breaking existing laws.

But by all means press ahead with your completely different analogy if you wish. Would you like to trot out the tired cliché of the MR2 Mk2 in a Ferrari F355 bodykit whilst you're at it, so I can call "house" on my Transphobia Bingo card?

[p2c]

ClockworkCupcake said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Perhaps an analogy would be rather than banning vehicles that are not allowed on motorways, for example pushbikes, we should allow them to decide themselves whether they are in fact a car, and should therefore be allowed to drive down the M4.

I was illustrating the idea of putting obstacles in the way people on the grounds that it might discourage lawbreakers from breaking existing laws.

But by all means press ahead with your completely different analogy if you wish. Would you like to trot out the tired cliché of the MR2 Mk2 in a Ferrari F355 bodykit whilst you're at it, so I can call "house" on my Transphobia Bingo card?

lol, been there done that in 2014. I wont link it as It only took me 0.31 seconds of googles time and we don't need another thread resurrected.. Shame to see nothing changes though.

p2c said:

toppstuff said:

Johnnytheboy said:

I'm with Tanguero.

If everything about a car physically is an MR2 but it thinks it is a Ferrari so makes some cosmetic changes to make it look like a Ferrari, the chances are it's just a confused MR2, not a Ferrari that happened to be built in the wrong factory.

Gotta love pistonheads. Where else would a thread about transgender issues involve a discussion about kit cars?

except the analogy would be more appropriate if the Ferrari boys accidentally picked up the plans for an MR2 that were laying around the factory (chromosomes), so the MR2 was built in the same Ferrari factory by the same Ferrari workers, made from 99% Ferrari parts underneath and the engine (soul) is Ferrari, its just the body shell that looks like an MR2.

Then here's the thing, if you take it back to the dealer they can panel beat the shell to make it look like the Ferrari it is underneath, but for the first 18 years they insist you try out the MR2, at this stage the only panel beater assigned to your car will be getting old and his eyesight is going, the longer you leave it the worse his eyesight will be and harder it is for him to panel beat your MR2 looking Ferrari into a Ferrari looking Ferrari.

The only thing though they can't change is the VIN etched into the chassis and those instruction erroneously used years ago are still sitting in the file cabinet at the factory. But do it early enough and you will get a Ferrari built in the Ferrari factory from the same parts as other Ferrari's, You may not get all the options fitted but some "generic" Ferrari's don't have those either, and other owners have had them removed when they broke down.

So in short its more like someone made an MR2 our of Ferrari parts and later turned those MR2 looking Ferrari parts into a Ferrari.

[ClockworkCupcake]

p2c said:

lol, been there done that in 2014. I wont link it as It only took me 0.31 seconds of googles time and we don't need another thread resurrected.. Shame to see nothing changes though.

Blimey. I literally had no idea that Johnnytheboy had said that. I was just making reference to the standard trope / cliché that is often mentioned. I had no idea how close to the mark I was, and it certainly wasn't a direct reference or jibe.

Edited by ClockworkCupcake on Sunday 23 July 17:19

[voyds9]

ClockworkCupcake said:

WinstonWolf said:

Just avoid using the cis bks and we'll be fine.

I think that bks, by definition, are a cis thing.

Cis white female?

ClockworkCupcake said:

Right.... yes. That's what it's all about. It's about ticking a box to get into the changing rooms.

I'll change my gender before sentencing

http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=215

[JagLover]

Johnnytheboy said:

ClockworkCupcake said:

Absolutely. We should ban all cars capable of doing over 70mph, and any car that is considered "sporty", and ban all track days. Because, you know, some people break the law by speeding, and track days encourage dangerous driving as the people who do track days will drive like that on public roads too.

Oh.. wait. Sorry, that's bks isn't it.

Perhaps an analogy would be rather than banning vehicles that are not allowed on motorways, for example pushbikes, we should allow them to decide themselves whether they are in fact a car, and should therefore be allowed to drive down the M4.

A rather better analogy

This is the current system

https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certif...

What exactly is wrong with having to go through a vigorous process like this in order to be treated as a different gender, such treatment applying to all legal aspects such as where you are imprisoned if you commit a crime and so forth.

Instead the government is pandering to those attention seekers who want to change gender at whim.

[WinstonWolf]

[Jonesy23]

gregs656 said:

Jonesy23 said:

The real danger is that in being nice and liberal you'll get the genuine cases mixed up with all sorts of others who are misguided or actively abusing the option being made available to them and this will lead to problems for everyone down the line.

So you think, in principle, that the lives of people who do absolutely nothing wrong should be infringed upon because some people may abuse a system?

That doesn't sound like somewhere I'd like to live.

I'd like to think you aren't actually that stupid but I suspect you are.

As has been pointed out there is already an existing system. There is scope for improving it.

The proposal being made appears to be to take something that has a real world impact on a whole range of things and open it up with no controls, and with no particular check first on what the consequences will be.

Lots of things have checks because some people might abuse the system. In fact life is full of things that affect people who did nothing wrong because others might. This is because we all live somewhere called 'the real world'. Feel free to stop living here though.

[Jonesy23]

WinstonWolf said:

Twitter is full of this st.

And people wonder why the genuine arguments don't get taken seriously.

[gregs656]

Jonesy23 said:

gregs656 said:

Jonesy23 said:

The real danger is that in being nice and liberal you'll get the genuine cases mixed up with all sorts of others who are misguided or actively abusing the option being made available to them and this will lead to problems for everyone down the line.

So you think, in principle, that the lives of people who do absolutely nothing wrong should be infringed upon because some people may abuse a system?

That doesn't sound like somewhere I'd like to live.

I'd like to think you aren't actually that stupid but I suspect you are.

As has been pointed out there is already an existing system. There is scope for improving it.

The proposal being made appears to be to take something that has a real world impact on a whole range of things and open it up with no controls, and with no particular check first on what the consequences will be.

Lots of things have checks because some people might abuse the system. In fact life is full of things that affect people who did nothing wrong because others might. This is because we all live somewhere called 'the real world'. Feel free to stop living here though.

Feel free to play the ball not the man.

To take your last paragraph - you can accept that to be true and still believe in principle that the ideal position is for as much freedom as possible. You seem to think that, going forward, the status quo should be maintained just in case. I don't.