is it going to far ? compensation culture

I'd like to see a female footballer try to argue she should be in the Arsenal men's team by your fuzzy logic.

I'd like to see evidence that you've read my post before replying.

If you think your reply is in any way reasonable, explain why you think it could be used in the way you claim.

Desegregation is a different argument. We can have that one as well if you like, but it would probably be better to start a different thread.

You are trying to make gender sound a lot more complicated than it actually is.

I haven't said anything at all about gender (which is vastly more complicated than silly people think it is, but that's another different issue). Feel free to start another new thread about gender if you want to, but please stick to the point in this one.
 
I have accused him of similar before, over complicating and poorly attempting to blur the lines.

And I accuse you of being either unable or unwilling to understand that reality is not as simple as a binary segregation.

Is that too complicated for you?

I've noticed that neither of you answered the question I asked. Presumably you know that reality is more complex than you want to acknowledge, so you ignore it.
 
Just because you want to be a woman, does not make you a woman.

The PC brigade can sue me. It's the truth.
 
It is thought that, if she is is successful, PC Chapman could receive compensation of up to £3,000, though her main objective is said to be to highlight the way transgender people are treated.

I look forward to seeing if she donates £3k to a transgender related charity
 
OK, primary sexual organs at birth.

Thank you for answering half the question.

1) Would you answer the other half, namely why you use that definition?

2) Your answer is one I've already shown to be wrong. It's the silliest of the wrong answers. I'll quote myself to save myself typing and save you the trouble of clicking back through the posts:

Here's a quick overview of the problems with various answers:

1) Birth. [..] It's obviously a silly answer if you give it a little thought and it contradicts reality in a spectacularly obvious way. [..] Everybody is born as a baby. If you want to remain consistent with your obviously wrong argument that everyone is always the same as they were when they were born, you must argue that everyone is always a newborn baby for all of their life. It's a spectacularly ridiculous line of argument to be making.

So unless you can come up with a good reason why you use that definition, it's clearly just wrong and silly. A person in adulthood is not the same as they were when they were born.
 
Just because you want to be a woman, does not make you a woman.

The PC brigade can sue me. It's the truth.

It's also irrelevant. We're not talking about people who want to be a woman. We're talking about people who have done the whole sex change thing. People who have a woman's hormone mix, a woman's secondary sexual organs (and no primary sexual organs), a woman's secondary sexual characteristics...I think that'll do on the "if it walks like a duck" principle. They're certainly not men any more. You could class them as something in between, but why bother? If you class them as not women, then you either have to ignore reality (usually by claiming that everyone always remains the same as they were when they were a baby) or define "woman" in a way that excludes some adults who have always been female (e.g. by defining sex by primary sexual organs, which some people have removed for medical reasons).
 
Here's a quick overview of the problems with various answers:

1) Birth. [..] It's obviously a silly answer if you give it a little thought and it contradicts reality in a spectacularly obvious way. [..] Everybody is born as a baby. If you want to remain consistent with your obviously wrong argument that everyone is always the same as they were when they were born, you must argue that everyone is always a newborn baby for all of their life. It's a spectacularly ridiculous line of argument to be making.

So unless you can come up with a good reason why you use that definition, it's clearly just wrong and silly. A person in adulthood is not the same as they were when they were born.

What is spectacularly ridiculous is you attempting to draw comparisons between a baby growing into an adult with a male magically transforming into a female :o I hope you do realise how absurd and in fact downright embarrassing your comparisons are?

Unfortunately it does not work that way in reality where I suggest you return to.

If you class them as not women, then you either have to ignore reality (usually by claiming that everyone always remains the same as they were when they were a baby) or define "woman" in a way that excludes some adults who have always been female (e.g. by defining sex by primary sexual organs, which some people have removed for medical reasons).

Oh dear, the irony :)

The actual real life reality is: -

A) You have a man who has had his penis chopped off
B) You have a man who has had what's left of his penis inverted in some strange concoction of blood, stiches, skin, lube and tears shaped into something resembling the physical appearance of a vagina.
C) You have a man who has had his chest filled with silicon implants to resemble something that looks like a woman's breasts.
D) You have a man who has had hormone replacement therapy taking in hormones that are not naturally his or blocking the ones that are.
E) You have a man who has slapped on a bit of makeup, had a shave, and grown his head hair.
F) You have a man who puts on a feminine tone of voice, so to sound more feminine
G/H/I/J etc etc I guess you can see where this is going

So what are we left with?

A man who has done untold damage to his body, that's what you are left with.

Perhaps in your alternate reality this man, by physically harming himself, has magically transformed into a woman. Next week we should perhaps take a cat and shave it, chop off its arms and legs, attach a speaker to make a hissing noise, strap on a child's rattling toy to its tail, and replace its teeth with some hypodermic needles filled with venom and call it a rattle snake?
 
Last edited:
It's also irrelevant. We're not talking about people who want to be a woman. We're talking about people who have done the whole sex change thing. People who have a woman's hormone mix, a woman's secondary sexual organs (and no primary sexual organs), a woman's secondary sexual characteristics...I think that'll do on the "if it walks like a duck" principle. They're certainly not men any more. You could class them as something in between, but why bother? If you class them as not women, then you either have to ignore reality (usually by claiming that everyone always remains the same as they were when they were a baby) or define "woman" in a way that excludes some adults who have always been female (e.g. by defining sex by primary sexual organs, which some people have removed for medical reasons).

Yeah, yeah, that's nice. If you ask 99% of men, they wouldn't touch him/it with a 10' pole. Or any pole.

So although it's nice that you believe a man can become a woman, in reality, most of us don't, and would be _very angry_ if we were tricked into any kind of intimacy* with such a person.

*Assuming beer goggles set to "extremely blurred".
 
Last edited:
What is spectacularly ridiculous is you attempting to draw comparisons between a baby growing into an adult with a male magically transforming into a female :o [..]

Well, that clears that up. You're obviously either not bothering to read my posts or you're lying about them.

Either way, it's pointless replying to you. You're making up stories about magic and you're pretending that physical changes are impossible after birth and that's just wrong and silly.

If you fancy replying to anything I've actually written, feel free. I might read it.
 
Yeah, yeah, that's nice. If you ask 99% of men, they wouldn't touch him/it with a 10' pole. Or any pole.

So although it's nice that you believe a man can become a woman, in reality, most of us don't, and would be _very angry_ if we were tricked into any kind of intimacy* with such a person.

*Assuming beer goggles set to "extremely blurred".

You have no reason other than your own unsubstantiated belief, which you project on to 99% of men (a number which you have made up, of course).

That's not a compelling argument. Even if it was believed by 99% of men, it still wouldn't be a compelling argument. History is full of things that "everyone knows" and which aren't true. For example, a couple of hundred years ago, most people believed that women couldn't do advanced maths.

You're free to make whatever choices you like about who you're intimate with, but don't confuse that with a good reason that applies to anyone else.
 
I think this might be a case where the ideal and reality don't fit together so well, I don't think compensation is correct here, I don't think it was reasonable for her to expect that the world is now where it should be with regards to LGBT acceptance, as we know it's not. She's not in a role where taking things to heart is a good approach (not to say she chooses to).

Ideally though, saying you are transgender over the mic wouldn't be a hard thing to say, just as saying "I'm gay" would be no harder than saying "I'm straight", but it's not, not by a very long way.

I do wonder though, what would a male sounding non-transgender female do? And could she have instead emulated that response, if she didn't want to be out.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom