The Gender Non-binary debate.

[Justayellowbadge]

8.4L 154 said:

So trans women using the toilet for its intended purpose is a threat to cis women. Yet a cis male blocking a girl in the toilet is fine. Hmm. Can I eat a piece of that regenerating cake.

I do hope you are not attributing any of those viewpoints to me? I made no comments on those issues.

To state 'Cis male threatens female' and provide a link that says 'no one was threatened' is no way to make an argument. It does, I suggest, undermine any point one does have.

[Rivenink]

Justayellowbadge said:

I'm curious how you get that from an article that states 'In yesterday’s statement, Dr Gaborik said there was no “evidence that the male students were threatening any student or using any type of force toward other students.”'?

The article also said:

article said:

The girl’s sister tweeted last week: “My sister was expelled for kneeing a guy in the dick after he was blocking her in the WOMENS bathroom.”

jfire said:

All men are guilty, we get it. Different thread.

The irony is in the injustice.

Bigots refuse to accept the rampant misogyny and rape culture in society. Not all men, etc.
Bigots refuse to accept that trans-women are female.
Bigots accuse trans-women, who they insist are men, of being sexual predators seeking to attack women in changing rooms and bathrooms.

Its a Venn diagram of fkwittery.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

_dobbo_ said:

- Repeatedly using "a trans" even when you've been told many times this is rude.

In George's defence, I think he has stopped doing that now.

But, yes, otherwise I agree.

I'm by no means religious, but had a religious upbringing, and the quote "By your fruits you shall be known" springs to mind. One can claim something, but one's attitudes and actions speak louder than words.

[Noodle1982]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

_dobbo_ said:

- Repeatedly using "a trans" even when you've been told many times this is rude.

In George's defence, I think he has stopped doing that now.

But, yes, otherwise I agree.

I'm by no means religious, but had a religious upbringing, and the quote "By your fruits you shall be known" springs to mind. One can claim something, but one's attitudes and actions speak louder than words.

Serious question time as I must have missed the bit about 'a trans' being rude. Why is it rude?

[andy_s]

Can we stop prefacing everything with 'cis', it's not in the normative lexicon, is a projection of doctrine, is divisional in nature, is un-asked for by 'cis' people and is patently un-inclusive...

[Tongue a little in cheek, but unless it's really necessary as a differentiator it's wholly unnecessary I think].

[George Smiley]

Noodle1982 said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

_dobbo_ said:

- Repeatedly using "a trans" even when you've been told many times this is rude.

In George's defence, I think he has stopped doing that now.

But, yes, otherwise I agree.

I'm by no means religious, but had a religious upbringing, and the quote "By your fruits you shall be known" springs to mind. One can claim something, but one's attitudes and actions speak louder than words.

Serious question time as I must have missed the bit about 'a trans' being rude. Why is it rude?

Because adverb vs adjective or some such. I don’t get it, a straight man, a gay woman, a trans but if it causes offence I make effort not to say it

[Clockwork Cupcake]

George Smiley said:

Because adverb vs adjective or some such. I don’t get it, a straight man, a gay woman, a trans but if it causes offence I make effort not to say it

Do you even read what you write before you click "Submit"?

To be consistent, your logical progression would need to be "a straight, a gay, a trans" or "a straight man, a gay woman, a trans person".

Ask yourself if it is acceptable to say "a black" or "a gay". I would posit that it isn't.

Of course we have been down road this umpteen times already, but you just love to rake the coals and stir up the st again (to mix my metaphors) don't you.

[Davos123]

George Smiley said:

Because adverb vs adjective or some such. I don’t get it, a straight man, a gay woman, a trans but if it causes offence I make effort not to say it

Are you really this obtuse? Can you not see from your examples why what you're doing is wrong?

Look at it like this instead:

A straight, a gay, a trans.

A straight man, a gay woman, a trans woman.

Can you see how the top line might be offensive?

[jfire]

andy_s said:

Can we stop prefacing everything with 'cis', it's not in the normative lexicon, is a projection of doctrine, is divisional in nature, is un-asked for by 'cis' people and is patently un-inclusive...

[Tongue a little in cheek, but unless it's really necessary as a differentiator it's wholly unnecessary I think].

And we seem hysterical for wondering why we've been given a name to distinguish and divide us from another community.

[andy_s]

jfire said:

andy_s said:

Can we stop prefacing everything with 'cis', it's not in the normative lexicon, is a projection of doctrine, is divisional in nature, is un-asked for by 'cis' people and is patently un-inclusive...

[Tongue a little in cheek, but unless it's really necessary as a differentiator it's wholly unnecessary I think].

And we seem hysterical for wondering why we've been given a name to distinguish and divide us from another community.

[George Smiley]

Sorry the example above was an accident should have had a gender after trans

[Who_Goes_Blue]

jfire said:

andy_s said:

Can we stop prefacing everything with 'cis', it's not in the normative lexicon, is a projection of doctrine, is divisional in nature, is un-asked for by 'cis' people and is patently un-inclusive...

[Tongue a little in cheek, but unless it's really necessary as a differentiator it's wholly unnecessary I think].

And we seem hysterical for wondering why we've been given a name to distinguish and divide us from another community.

Was just about to post this. For a community very keen on not being labelled or being called certain things they have been very quick to slap the cis term on everyone else. We don't need it thank you very much.

[gregs656]

George Smiley said:

However you consistently try to rubbish genuine concerns from cis people as it either doesn’t suit your position or you don’t believe we are entitled to have some reservations (cart wheeling trans cocks in my daughters face for example)

George from my POV a lot of what is brought on here as 'genuine concern' is not really any different from the genuine concern expressed about women getting the vote, or black rights, or mixed race marriages and many other things including proper sex education in the states, pro choice movements and so on

I am sure there are many people who have a genuine held belief that God exists, or the Earth is flat, or vaccinations are bad for their children and so on.

Having a 'genuine concern' or a 'genuinely held opinion' does not in it's self make that opinion or concern valid. David Icke is genuinely concerned that lizard people run the world.

I just think if you want to talk about sexual assault or how to create a world in which it's frequency is diminished then that is a worthwhile conversation to have, but I don't see you doing that anywhere else.

[Davos123]

andy_s said:

Can we stop prefacing everything with 'cis', it's not in the normative lexicon, is a projection of doctrine, is divisional in nature, is un-asked for by 'cis' people and is patently un-inclusive...

[Tongue a little in cheek, but unless it's really necessary as a differentiator it's wholly unnecessary I think].

Is the descriptor "trans" wholly unnecessary? They are either both equally useful or useless. Can't have it both ways.

[George Smiley]

gregs656 said:

George Smiley said:

However you consistently try to rubbish genuine concerns from cis people as it either doesn’t suit your position or you don’t believe we are entitled to have some reservations (cart wheeling trans cocks in my daughters face for example)

George from my POV a lot of what is brought on here as 'genuine concern' is not really any different from the genuine concern expressed about women getting the vote, or black rights, or mixed race marriages and many other things including proper sex education in the states, pro choice movements and so on

I am sure there are many people who have a genuine held belief that God exists, or the Earth is flat, or vaccinations are bad for their children and so on.

Having a 'genuine concern' or a 'genuinely held opinion' does not in it's self make that opinion or concern valid. David Icke is genuinely concerned that lizard people run the world.

I just think if you want to talk about sexual assault or how to create a world in which it's frequency is diminished then that is a worthwhile conversation to have, but I don't see you doing that anywhere else.

I put the women’s right to vote bullst argument to bed a few pages back

Men had no right either, we got it st the same time as women only we had millions die to achieve it

[andy_s]

Davos123 said:

andy_s said:

Can we stop prefacing everything with 'cis', it's not in the normative lexicon, is a projection of doctrine, is divisional in nature, is un-asked for by 'cis' people and is patently un-inclusive...

[Tongue a little in cheek, but unless it's really necessary as a differentiator it's wholly unnecessary I think].

Is the descriptor "trans" wholly unnecessary? They are either both equally useful or useless. Can't have it both ways.

I'm not looking for both ways, just mine; people who have 'trans' as a prefix can do the same or not, I'm not nothered...

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Davos123 said:

andy_s said:

Can we stop prefacing everything with 'cis', it's not in the normative lexicon, is a projection of doctrine, is divisional in nature, is un-asked for by 'cis' people and is patently un-inclusive...

[Tongue a little in cheek, but unless it's really necessary as a differentiator it's wholly unnecessary I think].

Is the descriptor "trans" wholly unnecessary? They are either both equally useful or useless. Can't have it both ways.

I don't disagree that it is potentially divisional. In normal everyday life the prefix "cis" is not needed, any more than the prefix "trans" is needed.

In discussions on transgenderism and gender identity, such as this thread, it can be used to denote "not trans" where such a distinction is germane to the topic. However, the people objecting to its use generally aren't used to having such a clarification put on them.

I guess in some ways its akin to referring to "white people" back in the age when it was "people" and "black people", since the lack of prefix would automatically assume "white". Likewise a lot of <people who are not trans> assume that no prefix is necessary for them, not even in discussions where the distinction is relevant to the discussion.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

George Smiley said:

I put the women’s right to vote bullst argument to bed a few pages back

Men had no right either, we got it st the same time as women only we had millions die to achieve it

No, you pontificated your stance in an "end of" way and expected that to be the end of it since only your opinion matters.

Yes, there was a whole class of men who did not have the vote prior. But crucially *no* women had the vote. Afterwards, those women whose male peers had the vote gained the vote, and alongside that a whole class of society (male and female) who had not had the vote also gained the vote.

Before:
A subset of the men had the vote. No women had the vote.

After:
All men of voting age had the vote. All women of voting age had the vote.

So, sorry George, but the bullst is yours.

[gregs656]

George Smiley said:

gregs656 said:

George Smiley said:

However you consistently try to rubbish genuine concerns from cis people as it either doesn’t suit your position or you don’t believe we are entitled to have some reservations (cart wheeling trans cocks in my daughters face for example)

George from my POV a lot of what is brought on here as 'genuine concern' is not really any different from the genuine concern expressed about women getting the vote, or black rights, or mixed race marriages and many other things including proper sex education in the states, pro choice movements and so on

I am sure there are many people who have a genuine held belief that God exists, or the Earth is flat, or vaccinations are bad for their children and so on.

Having a 'genuine concern' or a 'genuinely held opinion' does not in it's self make that opinion or concern valid. David Icke is genuinely concerned that lizard people run the world.

I just think if you want to talk about sexual assault or how to create a world in which it's frequency is diminished then that is a worthwhile conversation to have, but I don't see you doing that anywhere else.

I put the women’s right to vote bullst argument to bed a few pages back

Men had no right either, we got it st the same time as women only we had millions die to achieve it

George I will gladly include the arguments made against giving any one a vote - IE the arguments made against democracy per se.

It doesn't affect my over all point at all.

I suppose my question to you is what it is about topic of trans rights that leads you down the road of sexual assault, particularly as the concern mostly seems to be not about trans people as such but people taking advantage of measures to support the trans community.

On that subject - the subject of people taking advantage of situations to sexually assault people - the list is almost endless, but you don't appear to concerned about it outside of the trans rights discussion, or if you are you are not vocal about it. Why is that?

[George Smiley]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

George Smiley said:

I put the women’s right to vote bullst argument to bed a few pages back

Men had no right either, we got it st the same time as women only we had millions die to achieve it

No, you pontificated your stance in an "end of" way and expected that to be the end of it since only your opinion matters.

Yes, there was a whole class of men who did not have the vote prior. But crucially *no* women had the vote. Afterwards, those women whose male peers had the vote gained the vote, and alongside that a whole class of society (male and female) who had not had the vote also gained the vote.

Before:
A subset of the men had the vote. No women had the vote.

After:
All men of voting age had the vote. All women of voting age had the vote.

So, sorry George, but the bullst is yours.

It put to bed your male privilege bullst though