Jump to content

The 'Trans' Issue.


Recommended Posts

How is it a strawman argument? There is nothing fallacious in that article. It's probably more representative of the true feeling of the majority on this issue if only they felt allowed to express themselves without incurring the wrath of people such as yourself.

So instead of attacking me and the source have you any thoughts on men claiming to be women? Or vice versa? Should they be obliged with special status and entitlement? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

I'm sure it has but that doesn't detract from the fact that it still attracts the tiniest percentage of the whole population. We shouldn't be turning society upside down on the basis of a small number of people and their needs/desires. You can address the requirements of minorities sensitively and inclusively, indeed the vast majority of trans individuals would prefer this to be the case, I would imagine. However we do seem to have a militant fringe which seems to have hijacked this subject and as humans are great mimickers it'll run and run regardless of the collateral damage.

But, as history has shown, certain elements of society are resistant to change, especially when being asked to recognise minorities.

Blacks, Gays, Trans...you pick your choise of minority and there has been violent and vocal resistance against recognition.  

Lets not forget that relatively recently (in the grand scheme of things) "we" used to criminalise and chemically maim Gay and Trans people for the crime of being themselves, "legally" and at the insitance of the Government of the time.

This issue isn't going to go away any time soon, just ask any person of colour if racism isn't still a real and present bane in their lives.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, quilp said:

How is it a strawman argument?

You presented the "dick in knickers" arguement as if that was the sole and only issue being discussed.

I do not have a problem with your "black and whiteism" of a person with a penis identifying as a women.  That person might be under going transition and not yet have had the surgery to full transition.  That person might just be a transvestite or crossdresser.  Might, might, might....


...It's probably more representative of the true feeling of the majority...

Based on what metric?  Or is that perhaps the person bias you are so concered about?


Should they be obliged with special status and entitlement?

How dare a person expect to be treated with dignity and common decency as a human being!!!

Swap the word "Trans" for "Gay" or "Black" and see just how foolish you sound.

Edited by RIchard Britten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw an interesting comment the other day: "not long ago transexual people were simply called fetishists".

And didn't a bloke prisoner claim to identify as a woman so he could be transferred to a women's jail and abuse women?

Meanwhile, live and let live etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, quilp said:

This isn't about racism though, is it RIchard? You're trying to conflate the two for your own ends. Talk about strawmanning...

It is called a comparison. 

I know for someone with as narrow a view point as you this is all a bit scary and confusing, what with this having zero effect on you personally, but try to put yourself in someone elses shoes for a change.

I am sure at some point one or more of a certain group of posters will be along to inform us that there is no such thing as racism or homophobia any more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its one thing, if an individual is compelled internally, for us to recognise their situation regarding their gender/sex. We can be understanding and informed, and we can recognise their existence/experience, based on what they tell us about it. I think we are all more "informed" now on the subject, than most of us thought we ever would be.

It is quite another thing, to be expected to recognise those with gender "issues",  in any manner which directly contravenes the rights of the individual. Be it of either sex.

Men identifying as women in a prison situation, is one example of such a breach of the rights of the individual.

Also, the example of men, identifying as women,  using womens toilets, is another direct breach of the rights of the individual.

If we can legislate to accomodate the right to identify based on sex/gender, what else would that allow an individual to identify as?

What if somebody identified, as someone who doesn't recognise, those who identify as the opposite gender to which they were born?

Whose identity would be the strongest, how could it be ruled over in a court of law, should the two identities ever do legal identity battle? It is madness.

Take the toilet situation, as an example. Lets say a female decides to sue a man identifying as a woman, due to the fear she suffered in the ladies. Lets say"he" emerges from a closed cubicle, and she is maybe just changing her top quickly, or pants even. She could be emptying the contents of her bag, in search of her last menstrual aid etc etc. The point is, she sufferd true fear and is suing him and files papers. They go to court.

How would an individual who "identifies" as the opposite gender (natural born male), be able to prove that they actually identify as a women. Is that even possible? How would a jury be convinced.

They wouldnt need any convincing of the womans fear, that is certain. How could she be expecting a man to enter a womans toilet? Madness

I think lxxx has put the situation as it is very well. Its an interesting topic to discuss, nowadays even more so x

Edited by paul's got wright
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Specifically myth number 3:


"While the issue is now being used primarily against trans people, historically bathroom fears have been regularly deployed against civil rights causes. It was used against black people to justify segregation — by invoking fears that black men would attack white women in bathrooms. And it was used to stop the Equal Rights Amendment, which tried to establish legal equality between men and women, because opponents claimed it would lead to the abolition of bathrooms for different genders, potentially putting women in danger."

Edited by RIchard Britten
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, quilp said:

The concept that 'Trans-women' are women, and that we must believe this because they affirm it is further translated into the idea that 'Trans-women' are even more oppressed by the patriarchy than their 'Cis' sisters. Progressives routinely turn with vitriol on women who challenge this newly-minted 'Truth,' labelling them "Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists' or TERFS, no matter how moderate, thoughtful or indeed 'Trans-friendly' those women are. 

This new definition of womanhood is having bizarre effects on our political institutions. The Labour Party now admits men who identify as women on to all-women shortlists, without any necessity for a gender-recognition certificate. A number of these men have successfully applied to the Jo Cox Women In Leadership programme.

Its just an inflammatory argument. In truth it’s probably hugely beneficial to feminists to have more men transition into the role of women so they can experience first hand and convey to society how shit society, and men in general, often treat women as it would advance women’s rights in a way you’d assume. As for the toilets debate I’d say Richard B is right; it’s been used before in other situations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if a fella dresses up as a woman and I doubt that most people do. I would take that as a right. BUT his freedom to do that shouldn't impinge on other people's rights and freedoms while he's exercising his. In my book a woman has a similar and EQUAL right to use a public toilet without some fella in the next cubicle. Some women wouldn't be too bothered but most would - and are. J.S. Mill said it all two centuries ago in his Principles of Liberty.

Richard is (as usual) playing the man and not the ball; and not really discussing the issue at hand. He brings the same narrative to every subject; a left-right political spectrum where the problem is always those with a view to the right of his own simple relativist bollocks.

Edited by Shake me up Judy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...