Shave my balls, bigot!

Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
But being gay and being trans aren't even remotely similar.

One group is accepting who they are and largely today is accepted by most everyone else.

The other group is an ideology that tries to push people into mutilating themselves if they at all deviate from their prescribed gender norms.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
So, they come to the school, and they present a gender spectrum, and tell kids that they *might* be trans, and offer support and someone to talk to if they feel they need to. Cool. That sounds like a good idea to me. Doesn't sound like they are giving anyone drugs or telling people they have to be trans, they are just allowing kids the option to talk.

OH NO!!!!

I would say that this is a problem. Why are we telling kids that one thing is for girls and one thing is for boys? I have been working for the last five years to disabuse that notion for my subject as have maths, science and other STEM subjects. The last thing we need is telling kids that specific things are boy things and other things are girl things.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2009
Posts
10,254
G
I would say that this is a problem. Why are we telling kids that one thing is for girls and one thing is for boys? I have been working for the last five years to disabuse that notion for my subject as have maths, science and other STEM subjects. The last thing we need is telling kids that specific things are boy things and other things are girl things.

Gender and Sex are two different things
 

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
G


Gender and Sex are two different things

So why talk about a gender spectrum when we are talking about changing sex?

I was replying to something you posted which you seem to think isn't a problem but which I have a fairly major issue with as I don't want to undo lots of years of work of trying to encourage more girls into perceived male subjects.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2009
Posts
10,254
Except that these days Google really is all you need.

All I'd be doing is collating links. A service Google already provides.

So I won't be bothering. It's not like you have to look hard.

Besides you wouldn't change your tune no matter how many people peronally told you "transitioning" was a mistake.

You have drawn your lines and you have chosen to be a trans-lobbyist supporter because you like to align yourself with the extreme end of the "social justice" movement. Whether you believe in that nonsense or whether you're just in it for the lols I'm not quite sure.

I would happily change my mind, I've got zero skin in the game. Its funny how you are calling me out as a SJW zealot yet are offering no evidence to back up your claims that I am easily refuting.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
I would happily change my mind, I've got zero skin in the game. Its funny how you are calling me out as a SJW zealot yet are offering no evidence to back up your claims that I am easily refuting.
You're not easily refuting anything. As others have pointed out, your own position is contradictory. You actually advance two competing arguments at the same time.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2009
Posts
10,254
Burden of proof is on you to prove where I said I was miserable or my life was miserable. If it's OK for you to make that demand of others, it's fine for me.

You said you were scared to speak out, I figured you were miserable in your cowardice. I'm glad to hear that's not the case and apologise for assuming.

I work with a trans woman, have done for many years. I struggle not to call her by her previous male name not because I am bigoted (although I've no doubt you will claim I am without knowing me) but because I have known her for years prior to her divorcing her wife, walking out on the kids and deciding to be a trans woman. I personally think it's perfectly normal to struggle to remember that someone is now magically a woman because they changed their minds.

Didn't know about Mermaids, great news though, hopefully it doesn't get it's funding reinstated later when the push back dies down.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/suicide/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/suicide/

I don't think it sounds perfectly normal for someone with your intelligence to struggle to remember basic things. I'm sure she understands. It must be very difficult for you.

Cool TERF site you've linked there. Seems like it's an organisation that's doing really well. Wonder if it will get all the support Mermaids has in comparison....
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,554
So, they come to the school, and they present a gender spectrum, and tell kids that they *might* be trans, and offer support and someone to talk to if they feel they need to. Cool. That sounds like a good idea to me. Doesn't sound like they are giving anyone drugs or telling people they have to be trans, they are just allowing kids the option to talk.

OH NO!!!!

Yes "oh no"

The pressure groups present a rigidly stereotyoed version of what it is to be "male" and "female" and state that those not conforming to the stereotype are exhibiting signs of being trans.

Vulnerable children read and watch similiar stuff online (but in an even less controlled environment) and conclude their lack of conformity must because they to are trans.

From that point on every professional is compelled to only ever re affirm the child's belief and the child is set down an irreversible party of hormone blockers and cross sex hormones.

If I go to my doctors with a self diagnosis of the internet and my peers my doctor doesn't accept it and jump straight to the medication part......

This is nothing like thinking you may be gay.

Children haven't gone to doctors to be medicated to affirm their homosexuality.

As other have pointed out you are clearly ideologically invested in this argument from your rabid social justice credentials. I don't actually think the "truth" or reality of the arguments actually matter to people like you.

You say gender and sex aren't the same thing.....


Then fine we can stop medicating children to stop secondary sex characteristics from developing whilst allowing more free gender expression...... so now your on the same side as people like me and fox eye?
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
You said you were scared to speak out, I figured you were miserable in your cowardice. I'm glad to hear that's not the case and apologise for assuming.

I don't think it sounds perfectly normal for someone with your intelligence to struggle to remember basic things. I'm sure she understands. It must be very difficult for you.

Cool TERF site you've linked there. Seems like it's an organisation that's doing really well. Wonder if it will get all the support Mermaids has in comparison....
Ah back to just trolling, then. Carry on.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2009
Posts
10,254
You're not easily refuting anything. As others have pointed out, your own position is contradictory. You actually advance two competing arguments at the same time.

So far I've been linked two news articles, one from the telegraph and one from I think the spectator, both I have shown that they do not say what people here are saying and are mere sensationalist nonsense lapped up by your bordering on Daily Mail reader tier posters in here.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
So far I've been linked two news articles, one from the telegraph and one from I think the spectator, both I have shown that they do not say what people here are saying and are mere sensationalist nonsense lapped up by your bordering on Daily Mail reader tier posters in here.
What about the bit where you on the one hand said sex is not gender, and on the other hand are fine with people changing their sex if they violate one of the prescribed gender norms, as advocated by the Mermaids group you argue in favour of?

Any comment on that?

Do you think there are "girl traits" and "boy traits", and the display of boy traits by girls indicates a possible trans person? Stop skirting around the issue.

And if you are in favour of such traits, can you point to a definitely "male trait" and a definitely "female trait" that should not be displayed by a normal person of the opposite sex? In other words, how would you tell a man from a trans woman? Would it be objective evidence (ie those visible traits), or would it purely be based on the subjective feelings of the person? So regardless of traits, a person tell you they are in the wrong body is displaying all the evidence you need to agree with that assessment?

e: I should clarify that in this context "trait" means "gender trait" not physical traits.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
I think it's quite a bit alike.

Jordan Petersons initial rise to wider public exposure was due to Bill C16 in Canada (where the Yaniv case is also being heard). The bill could be split into two issues.

1) the issue that the bill, in effect, would compel certain forms of speech.

Which is a drastic departure from law in common law based jurisdictions where generally controls on speech exist to restrict what you can say and where you can say it rather then to compel you to say certain things under threat of legal penalty

I’m well aware what bill you were trying to discuss. While your comments were actually irrelevant to the law itself, you were parroting Peterson’s incorrect version of the law.
And for clarity, no it does not do that.

2) that the form the conpelled speech took was to force recognition of self identified gender identity in language used.

For the overwhelming majority of English speakers the words 'woman', 'she', 'her' etc relate to a human females. With the word 'female' denoting a biological woman in this context. (and vice versa for 'man' etc)

So in summary the issue Petersons raised was that the goverment was seeking to enact legislation that would force citizens to affirm an others subjective view of themselves and treat them as per that subjective view.

Only in as much as it forced people to treat trans in the same way they treat being gay or black. There is no forcing recognition at all, and in fact just not using the preferred pronoun would not get you a criminal record, as clarified by several lawyers and people with far more eloquence than me.

For example

“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”

The legislation is not what you think it is and was not what Peterson was claiming it was. Again, I’ll state that this legislation was a national version of legislation already present in most provincial government legislation already. If it was to be used for what you claim, people would have been arrested and jailed for at least a decade prior to the national legislation coming in to force.

Here’s a few experts explaining why you and Peterson are wrong. There should be no surprise here as he himself was politely dismissed as being wrong when he went in front of the lawmakers to argue against the bill.

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/m/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

Unfortunately the misunderstanding of this legeslarion, propagated by Peterson and now by yourself has actually lead to issues in itself. For example here’s a National Post article (NP is the equivalent of the Telegraph, a centre right paper aimed at educated individuals, not some “socialist leftie” paper).

They clearly also stand on the side that the legislation does not mean what you think it means (nor what the teaching assistants boss thought it meant).

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/nationa...l-c-16-and-gender-identity-discrimination/amp

Which is the same issue in the Yaniv case where he is attempting to force acceptance of his self ID on other's and force them to treat him as a woman (despite all the objective evidence showing the opposite). If others are compelled to accept Yaniv as being a woman they cannot therefore refuse him service on the basis that they don't provide services to men who self ID as women.

Personally I think the tribunal in this particular case will dodge the monster the law has made for itself by ruling that the beauticians could refuse service on the basis that they don't wax penises and testicles (as they don't have the specific training and materials required) rather then the don't provide services to men in general.

There’s a big difference between refusing to wax a piece of male genitalia, whether on a man or a transgender woman, and someone who has had surgery to recreate female genitalia being refused. C-16 may put refusing to do the latter at the same level as refusing to wax a woman because they were black or gay...


There’s only one person parading ignorance here...

Again, the legislation was about putting trans on the same level as other other protected categories, such as sexual orientation, sex and ethnicity. This already existed in most provincial law anyway, so nothing really changed with it passing.

We all know how much you are against protected catalogues though, so I can see why you don’t like this. However stop spreading claptrap about it, all it does is cause problems when people take your definition as the actual legislation.

So the law here absolutely does prevent refusal of service based on the part of the beauticians refusing to accept Yaniv's gender identity unless they could show one of the limited exceptions applied.

As above I suspect the tribunal will dodge this one by stating that beauticians can decline service to people with penises and testicles regardless of whether they are 'men' or 'women' . So the basis of the discrimination isn't based on gender ID itself.

Pretty sure refusing to accept because the person has male genitalia is very different to refusing to accept due to being trans - as already said the latter would be treated in the same way as refusing because they were gay.


A rather pathetic attempt to discredit some of his views....

I haven't purchased a single one of his books nor sought him out for 'worship'. I disagree with him on some things but he clearly makes some points tht resonate with many.

Watching some YouTube videos and agreeing with some of his opinions is just that....

If you want some misplaced devotion to a cause you are probably better looking at thoose that follow the excesses of current self declared gender ID with a potentially unlimited range of self declared ID's

Nope, discrediting his views is very simple - listening to the people that actually understand the law does that. I’m discrediting the people that parrot the lies/mistruths. It’s pretty easy to find plenty of reliable links showing he’s wrong...

I’ll take your last comment as the real truth to all this. You may well know he’s wrong, but continue to parrot the misinformation as a way of trying to discredit legislation you don’t agree with - the furtherment of trans rights. Much like Trump, another person you appear to follow devotedly, he uses the same tactics - repeat lies and mistruths until people actually start to believe them...

Edit: and to quote your link on the Canadian Human right act.

The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Pretty clearly backing up the argument I was making, and what most people would consider a fundamental right.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,554
There is no forcing recognition at all, and in fact just not using the preferred pronoun would not get you a criminal record, as clarified by several lawyers and people with far more eloquence than me.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Try reading your own links


Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.

what happens when you refuse to comply/ pay your fine as a point of principal because you believe the tribunal decision is tyrannical?


So the article concedes that failing to recognise gender pronouns might lead to sanction. It doesn't (yet) lead to an immediate criminal sanction/prison but if you have to say something under threat of a tribunal who can impose significant penalties I think you would have to be crazy to then claim there's nothing 'forcing recognition'

Given that a man in Canada is currently using the tribunal against some poor 'women of colour' to assert his right to have his balls waxed and has already forced some other similiar women out of business, under threat of legal action. I don't see its at all hyperbolic to suggest that Petersons's predictions may yet be proven correct and that a conscientious
objector may find themselves in prison, for contempt of court, for refusing to abide by self ID gender pronouns.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom