Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

they will twist your words to try and trip you up and  when you have them dead to rights they will just change the definitions.

But no matter how long we beat this topic to death, the simple fact is, there are boys and there are girls, gender determined at conception. If your mind doesn't agree with your body, you are trans.

Thats all there is despite page after page of mental wanking by the trans allies

Oh you don't believe in epigenetics? Or aren't familiar with hormonal processes in the womb that affect gender?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I said I'm out of it. If you can't understand what I write, I'm not going to spend all afternoon explaining it to you. It's perfectly clear as it is.

I have a very clear understanding of your blatant prejudice.

And if I chose to reply to something before reading several more pages, I can and will do so. You are not in control of me and never will be.

Everything you have posted has shown me you have no empathy whatsoever for women, be they trans or natural born. You have no respect for us and are not worth wasting my time on. My life is too short to tolerate intolerance. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh... oh dear. You both have certain attitudes that have been brought about by either taking great interest in the subject in the past, or even researching it in the post. So your vested interests are the mainenance of your beliefs\attitudes. You haven't started from scratch in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

We've been through all that. You don't understand the point, or you do and you just fancy being objectionable. Either way, I'm not going to explain it any more. Go back and understand, or remain ignorant. I don't mind either way.

The only ignorance here is the ignorance you are flooding the thread with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Phorumities said:
1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I've yet to see a "trans ally" insist they want non-trans people, with presumably nefarious intent, to take advantage of societal accommodation of trans people. That's the story promulgated by trans antagonists. If you have examples to show otherwise, I'd like to see them.

the OP stated that physically she is 100% female in appearance yet she is a trans male (ie mentally is 100% male) so its no great stretch of the imagination that the reverse also exists and a phyical male could demand to use the girls bathroom because shes a trans female.

Don't blame me for these ridiculous scenarios, blame the out of control trans lobby.

I worded my request pretty specifically and you didn't address it. As a trans-advocate, I don't think the OP helped the cause, and posited a situation that would unsurprisingly generate confusion because he's pushing societal norms pretty hard. I did not see the OP advocating malice.

Even if the trans lobby is out of control, I don't think they'd be advocating for the situation I described, as that would justifiably result in suppression. The Law of Unintended Consequences could possibly result in the situation I described, however. The question then becomes, as always, a balance of possibilities and desirabilities.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I've yet to see a "trans ally" insist they want non-trans people, with presumably nefarious intent, to take advantage of societal accommodation of trans people. That's the story promulgated by trans antagonists. If you have examples to show otherwise, I'd like to see them.

i never said a non trans person will take advantage im saying a non displaying trans person will take advantage of the situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Naa. You were just nit-picking and not worth the time replying to. You understood my point, and you posted nothing to show it was wrong. You tried a bit of this and a bit of that, but nothing worked. It was a complete fail for you.

No! You literally said a Man turned to woman could not give birth, at least anytime soon!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

LMAO! Crikey! Is that your basis for disagreeing? LOL. You're funny :D

So going back to the beginning of this. A male body cannot be changed into a female body, and a female body cannot be changed into a male body. That's it. You can do things with the gentalia, you can sort the boobs out, you can remove a male's prostate, you can fix the legs so that they bend in a bit for a female and out a bit for a male. And when you've done all, that you haven't changed the body's gender one iota. Its gender is the same as when you started making changes. Internally, a male remains a male, and a female remains a female.

Ahah! You edited this post to hide your wrongness!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

sigh... oh dear. You both have certain attitudes that have been brought about by either taking great interest in the subject in the past, or even researching it in the post. So your vested interests are the mainenance of your beliefs\attitudes. You haven't started from scratch in this thread.

trans allies are a touchy lot when they they don't get their own way. They resort to name calling and stamping their feet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Selene Gregoire said:

I have a very clear understanding of your blatant prejudice.

And if I chose to reply to something before reading several more pages, I can and will do so. You are not in control of me and never will be.

Everything you have posted has shown me you have no empathy whatsoever for women, be they trans or natural born. You have no respect for us and are not worth wasting my time on. My life is too short to tolerate intolerance. 

You can believe what you like. It doesn't bother me one jot. If you want to get things wrong, it's your problem, not mine.

Btw, I'm still waiting for you to show me where I spoke for women. You don't seem to be very good at backing yourself up ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

they will twist your words to try and trip you up and  when you have them dead to rights they will just change the definitions.

But no matter how long we beat this topic to death, the simple fact is, there are boys and there are girls, gender determined at conception. If your mind doesn't agree with your body, you are trans.

Thats all there is despite page after page of mental wanking by the trans allies

I'm waiting for a discussion with you, Phorumities, on epigenetics and hormonal influences in the womb as it applies to gender.

Also, hormonal influences on various structures in the brain and how this contributes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

No! You literally said a Man turned to woman could not give birth, at least anytime soon!!

Did I say that. Or did I say 'naturally'. I don't remeber. But it's correct that a male body cannot give birth naturally. No male body has ever been turned into a female body, so what you said is complete rubbish.

You don't want me to go do you :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phorumities said:
6 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

sigh... oh dear. You both have certain attitudes that have been brought about by either taking great interest in the subject in the past, or even researching it in the post. So your vested interests are the mainenance of your beliefs\attitudes. You haven't started from scratch in this thread.

trans allies are a touchy lot when they they don't get their own way. They resort to name calling and stamping their feet.

Is it name-calling to observe where wood resides?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Ahah! You edited this post to hide your wrongness!

What the hell are you on about? I posted and edited it an hour ago. It's very rare to find a post of mine that I don't edit - VERY rare. There was nothing I wrote wrong in that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

sigh... oh dear. You both have certain attitudes that have been brought about by either taking great interest in the subject in the past, or even researching it in the post. So your vested interests are the mainenance of your beliefs\attitudes. You haven't started from scratch in this thread.

Are you really that dense? Of course you will say you are not and then try to turn it all back on me, just as you have been doing all along. You can't even admit that you can't accept others for who and what they are. For you, they must conform to your idea or you just can't deal with it. You are the one with the closed mind, not me. There is good reason there aren't any people like you in my life any more. Done with you and your bs prejudice.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Even if the trans lobby is out of control, I don't think they'd be advocating for the situation I described, as that would justifiably result in suppression. The Law of Unintended Consequences could possibly result in the situation I described, however. The question then becomes, as always, a balance of possibilities and desirabilities.

Very well put; the Law of Unintended Consequences is precisely what I've been trying (potentially failing) to explain when taking about conflicting acceptances over the last few days. I don't think any trans ally actually wants to put other vulnerable people at risk through their requests for further trans acceptance; yet that has already been the case in the Karen White example, and others. Result vs intent.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Are you really that dense? Of course you will say you are not and then try to turn it all back on me, just as you have been doing all along. You can't even admit that you can't accept others for who and what they are. For you, they must conform to your idea or you just can't deal with it. You are the one with the closed mind, not me. There is good reason there aren't any people like you in my life any more. Done with you and your bs prejudice.

LOL That wasn't about you.

 

And now I really am OUT of this thread.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

sigh... oh dear. You both have certain attitudes that have been brought about by either taking great interest in the subject in the past, or even researching it in the post. So your vested interests are the mainenance of your beliefs\attitudes. You haven't started from scratch in this thread.

Phil, once again, my vested interest in most all discussions is my desire for all marginalized people to gain the respect the rest of us enjoy.

I majored in Social Work, Psychology, & Women's Studies and I studied the problems in society that prevent this respect (not that I know all of them, of course).

I worry about the rules society sets (can I say the word 'politics') that inhibit the respect all oppressed peoples deserve. And I am gobsmacked by people on this thread who have no clue or desire to help the suffering these people have had to endure through the centuries.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phorumities said:
1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I've yet to see a "trans ally" insist they want non-trans people, with presumably nefarious intent, to take advantage of societal accommodation of trans people. That's the story promulgated by trans antagonists. If you have examples to show otherwise, I'd like to see them.

i never said a non trans person will take advantage im saying a non displaying trans person will take advantage of the situation.

I've corrected my statement to more accurately reflect my intention by striking out "non-trans". That was an unnecessary narrowing of scope.

Do you have an example of the trans community advocating that people with malicious (I should stop using nefarious, because I am that ;-) intent use trans-ness as a cover for harmful activity? That was my request.

You can probably find someone to take advantage of any situation, but it would be quite a stretch to think the trans community is advocating that. Balancing the intended consequences against the unintended requires thoughtful analysis of both, not fear mongering. It also requires both sides to understand that thoughtful analysis might not go their way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...