The Gender Non-binary debate.

[V10leptoquark]

George Smiley said:

You mean she. She identifies as a female and should be referred to as such. Even if she is a giant penis.

Well if biologically a 'bloke' and gives off an impression that he is a bloke in drag - ie. a transvestite, then only those that know him and whereby he has expressed a communicative desire to be referred to as something he is biologically not, should be those that "should" refer to him as a 'she'. (For fear of offending of course).

Otherwise, how are the public to know?
A lot of the public would see a transvestite and obviously refer to the biological gender rather than an unknown chosen identity.

I'm guessing there may be cases of transvestites incorrectly being referred to as female when they wish not to be. ?

Personally I think the whole "identifies as" agenda has become a total farce. People very quick and so very easily on the 'offended' trigger, only to draw attention to themselves or for financial gain.
Its not the wider public's fault that if presented with a bloke in drag that they are at fault for not magically knowing before hand what the individual "identifies as" and also what his/her name reference choice is.


This reply is not directed at you George, its just that your reply seems to be a typical command from the progressive left these days - the reply above is just a generalisation of my take on it.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

V10leptoquark said:

This reply is not directed at you George, its just that your reply seems to be a typical command from the progressive left these days - the reply above is just a generalisation of my take on it.

You've obviously not read a lot of this thread then. That's a surprisingly atypical reply from George.

[George Smiley]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

You've obviously not read a lot of this thread then. That's a surprisingly atypical reply from George.

What? I’ve always said if someone identifies themselves as a woman I’d call them that. Might not want someone with a penis demanding to be treated exactly the same when it comes to changing rooms or grooming services and still think they should disclose up front if entering into sex (post op).

But I’ve always said I’d respect their gender. It’s when people interchange depending on mood, they can do one.

[R Mutt]

V10leptoquark said:

Well if biologically a 'bloke' and gives off an impression that he is a bloke in drag - ie. a transvestite, then only those that know him and whereby he has expressed a communicative desire to be referred to as something he is biologically not, should be those that "should" refer to him as a 'she'. (For fear of offending of course).

Otherwise, how are the public to know?
A lot of the public would see a transvestite and obviously refer to the biological gender rather than an unknown chosen identity.

I'm guessing there may be cases of transvestites incorrectly being referred to as female when they wish not to be. ?

Personally I think the whole "identifies as" agenda has become a total farce. People very quick and so very easily on the 'offended' trigger, only to draw attention to themselves or for financial gain.
Its not the wider public's fault that if presented with a bloke in drag that they are at fault for not magically knowing before hand what the individual "identifies as" and also what his/her name reference choice is.


This reply is not directed at you George, its just that your reply seems to be a typical command from the progressive left these days - the reply above is just a generalisation of my take on it.

I'm going to walk around in a dress and long wig this weekend and respond hysterically to anyone addressing me in the feminine, as is my right. I'd imagine this would result in many people treating gender ambiguities with extreme caution and avoiding addressing the individual at all, resulting in alienation. Bit of a catch 22 not a million miles away from the status quo.

Edited by R Mutt on Thursday 15th August 15:58

[Noodle1982]

Trans gender man (born female) gives birth and wanted to be described as the 'father' on the birth certificate.

It goes to the high court and the judge is having none of it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7503201/T...

Where does this leave the whole misgendering debate? If it has been ruled that this person is a mother then surely this person is a she.

[otolith]

Noodle1982 said:

Trans gender man (born female) gives birth and wanted to be described as the 'father' on the birth certificate.

It goes to the high court and the judge is having none of it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7503201/T...

Where does this leave the whole misgendering debate? If it has been ruled that this person is a mother then surely this person is a she.

Are you saying that men can't be mothers?

[George Smiley]

Is she called Sam Smith?

[DS240]

Noodle1982 said:

Trans gender man (born female) gives birth and wanted to be described as the 'father' on the birth certificate.

It goes to the high court and the judge is having none of it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7503201/T...

Where does this leave the whole misgendering debate? If it has been ruled that this person is a mother then surely this person is a she.

Thank god, some sense!

It really is simple. Which parts do you have... the answer means you are either male or female. The biology is pretty simple.

She wants to be a man, however gives birth and wants to be recognised as the father?! Surely time to sit back and say enough is enough, this is ridiculous. Where is society going that this is just the norm now and speaking against it is automatically branded as being ‘wrong’.

Glad the judges have come to this verdict.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Noodle1982 said:

Where does this leave the whole misgendering debate? If it has been ruled that this person is a mother then surely this person is a she.

No, it means he has a working uterus and gave birth to a child therefore is registered as the biological mother. He didn't father the child so can't be said to be the father.

It has no bearing on his gender identity or the misgendering debate.

[Noodle1982]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Noodle1982 said:

Where does this leave the whole misgendering debate? If it has been ruled that this person is a mother then surely this person is a she.

No, it means he has a working uterus and gave birth to a child therefore is registered as the biological mother. He didn't father the child so can't be said to be the father.

It has no bearing on his gender identity or the misgendering debate.

Going most of their lives believing they were born into the wrong body to only go and do the most female thing known to man (and women) and get pregnant and give birth.

Makes sense.

[DS240]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Noodle1982 said:

Where does this leave the whole misgendering debate? If it has been ruled that this person is a mother then surely this person is a she.

No, it means he has a working uterus and gave birth to a child therefore is registered as the biological mother. He didn't father the child so can't be said to be the father.

It has no bearing on his gender identity or the misgendering debate.

This person is a she! Biologically this is a women. So where is the craziness in saying this person is a she. They might call themselves a he, but there is some pretty conclusive DNA and basic biology which would dispute this.

‘I’m a millionaire’... except my bank account doesn’t reflect that. I can say it all I like, but the hard facts reflect that I’m not. I can say it over and over again, but I still won’t actually be a millionaire.

[J4CKO]

As a middle aged heterosexual male, I just identify as that, seems like this is almost, in some case a thought experiment, as humans have more time and self awareness we are testing the boxes we get put in, some maybe looking to appear special or different on a planet of seven billion, some genuinely unsure and uncomfortable in the categories that exist based on traditional biology.

It will settle down, as realistically there are not that many folk that cant be categorised traditionally into Male or Female, I personally am happy with people to consider what they prefer to be identified as, as long as its genuine and not being contrary for the sake of it as it winds "Gammons" up.

Its a pretty small minority, even when you add in the Lesbian and Gay community, I think the internet and social media allows almost too much communication and opportunities to express and get wound up.

[_dobbo_]

Noodle still pushing his toxic agenda and a new bullst analogy about being a millionaire. Oh good.

Around we go again.

[George Smiley]

Not really he’s making sense. Whilst it’s ok to transgender it’s not ok to try and then claim to be a father when that’s impossible.

There’s too much in the form of pandering for the fear of social backlash. It’s possible to strike a balance so long as Sam smith takes his pronouns and fks off, women with dicks stop getting upset when natural women don’t want to shave their balls and when trans men stop trying to claim discrimination when they mother a child.

[Noodle1982]

_dobbo_ said:

Noodle still pushing his toxic agenda and a new bullst analogy about being a millionaire. Oh good.

Around we go again.

It's now toxic to suggest that a woman who identifies as a man but gives birth is actually a woman?

Jesus fking christ.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Noodle1982 said:

It's now toxic to suggest that a woman who identifies as a man but gives birth is actually a woman?

What's toxic is your campaign to "prove" that trans people are still their birth gender, and this is your latest attempt to do so. You restarted this thread specifically to further that campaign.

Let me tell you a little something about the perversity of law. I'm a freelancer running my own Limited Company, and as such am subject to a bit of legislation called IR35 which is to do with 'disguised employment'. That's where, if HMRC can prove that my work is caught by this legislation, they can treat me as if I was an employee of my client rather than in a business-to-business relationship and tax me accordingly. So, if that happened, you'd think that I could then go after my client and say "I want all the rights of employment please - holiday pay, sick pay, pension, etc". After all, HMRC have just proved that I'm an employee so therefore I am, right? Sadly not. I'd only be an employee for tax purposes but still self-employed (or, more correctly, employed by my own business) for the purposes of trying to gain employee benefits.

So, you see, even in law there is duality. So, in the same way, a trans man can give birth to a child because they have a working womb, but can still be a man. Because as I've just mentioned, establishing something for one purpose does not give an "if this then this" situation for something else. If it did then I would automatically get employee benefits from a client if HMRC said I was caught by IR35 and that is most definitely not the case.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Thursday 26th September 09:02

[Androgynous]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Noodle1982 said:

It's now toxic to suggest that a woman who identifies as a man but gives birth is actually a woman?

What's toxic is your campaign to "prove" that trans people are still their birth gender, and this is your latest attempt to do so. You restarted this thread specifically to further that campaign.

Let me tell you a little something about the perversity of law. I'm a freelancer running my own Limited Company, and as such am subject to a bit of legislation called IR35 which is to do with 'disguised employment'. That's where, if HMRC can prove that my work is caught by this legislation, they can treat me as if I was an employee of my client rather than in a business-to-business relationship and tax me accordingly. So, if that happened, you'd think that I could then go after my client and say "I want all the rights of employment please - holiday pay, sick pay, pension, etc". After all, HMRC have just proved that I'm an employee so therefore I am, right? Sadly not. I'd only be an employee for tax purposes but still self-employed (or, more correctly, employed by my own business) for the purposes of trying to gain employee benefits.

So, you see, even in law there is duality. So, in the same way, a trans man can give birth to a child because they have a working womb, but can still be a man. Because as I've just mentioned, establishing something for one purpose does not give an "if this then this" situation for something else. If it did then I would automatically get employee benefits from a client if HMRC said I was caught by IR35 and that is most definitely not the case.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Thursday 26th September 09:02

You're conflating sex and gender. A biological man cannot give birth as he doesn't have a womb, the courts have simply clarified that the mother of a child is the person who gave birth.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Androgynous said:

You're conflating sex and gender. A biological man cannot give birth as he doesn't have a womb, the courts have simply clarified that the mother of a child is the person who gave birth.

Indeed.

[George Smiley]

And a man cannot be a mother.

[InitialDave]

George Smiley said:

And a man cannot be a mother.

Where's that defined in law?

Because if he's legally a man, and the court says he must be put down as the mother due to being the one who gave birth, that would affirm that yes, a man can be a mother.