FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > There are only 2 genders
There are only 2 genders
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depends how closed his mind is I think. Some people can be educated on these kinda things, others can't, which is a shame. " The thing was, there was no reason to think he was closed minded.He invited people to discuss with him but,there didn't seem to be anyone around that day who could string a coherent sentence together. (A damning indictment of US education, if you ask me). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Physically you are born either Male or Female so in that sense then yes there are only 2 sexes. I'm not particularly bothered what a person calls themselves after 18 . That's up to them ." Actually slim, that's not always the case...some people, albeit few people are born with less straightforward biology and have both or aspects of both male and female reproductive parts. Regardless of age, the way someone feels, identifies and would like to be approached doesn't affect me, let them be them I say  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Physically you are born either Male or Female so in that sense then yes there are only 2 sexes. I'm not particularly bothered what a person calls themselves after 18 . That's up to them ." There are those who would say that sex and gender are not the same thing. He specified 'gender' rather than sex. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depends how closed his mind is I think. Some people can be educated on these kinda things, others can't, which is a shame. The thing was, there was no reason to think he was closed minded.He invited people to discuss with him but,there didn't seem to be anyone around that day who could string a coherent sentence together. (A damning indictment of US education, if you ask me)." Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Physically you are born either Male or Female so in that sense then yes there are only 2 sexes. I'm not particularly bothered what a person calls themselves after 18 . That's up to them . There are those who would say that sex and gender are not the same thing. He specified 'gender' rather than sex." Yeah fair enough ..As I said I'm not overly fussed what gender anybody wants to call themselves  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depends how closed his mind is I think. Some people can be educated on these kinda things, others can't, which is a shame. The thing was, there was no reason to think he was closed minded.He invited people to discuss with him but,there didn't seem to be anyone around that day who could string a coherent sentence together. (A damning indictment of US education, if you ask me). Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him "TBH I very much doubt he would change his mind under any circumstances (you have to wonder about his motivation for posing the problem in the first place) but,I'd have enjoyed the discussion too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Physically you are born either Male or Female so in that sense then yes there are only 2 sexes. I'm not particularly bothered what a person calls themselves after 18 . That's up to them . There are those who would say that sex and gender are not the same thing. He specified 'gender' rather than sex." I fear that if he couldn't muster intelligent debate on a university campus.... You have no chance on a fab forum. Most people can barely articulate their bigoted views in English. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Physically you are born either Male or Female so in that sense then yes there are only 2 sexes. I'm not particularly bothered what a person calls themselves after 18 . That's up to them . There are those who would say that sex and gender are not the same thing. He specified 'gender' rather than sex. I fear that if he couldn't muster intelligent debate on a university campus.... You have no chance on a fab forum. Most people can barely articulate their bigoted views in English. " Actually,I think I have more faith in the intellectual ability of Fab people than that of American students,especially after watching that you tube clip. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Physically you are born either Male or Female so in that sense then yes there are only 2 sexes. I'm not particularly bothered what a person calls themselves after 18 . That's up to them . There are those who would say that sex and gender are not the same thing. He specified 'gender' rather than sex. I fear that if he couldn't muster intelligent debate on a university campus.... You have no chance on a fab forum. Most people can barely articulate their bigoted views in English. Actually,I think I have more faith in the intellectual ability of Fab people than that of American students,especially after watching that you tube clip." I think I've seen that one. I appreciate the idea that gender is a social concept, but what has always struck me as troubling is how one defines gender categories if you don't anchor them on biology. What makes someone. "male" for example, if it isn't possession of a penis and testicles? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Physically you are born either Male or Female so in that sense then yes there are only 2 sexes. I'm not particularly bothered what a person calls themselves after 18 . That's up to them . There are those who would say that sex and gender are not the same thing. He specified 'gender' rather than sex. I fear that if he couldn't muster intelligent debate on a university campus.... You have no chance on a fab forum. Most people can barely articulate their bigoted views in English. Actually,I think I have more faith in the intellectual ability of Fab people than that of American students,especially after watching that you tube clip. I think I've seen that one. I appreciate the idea that gender is a social concept, but what has always struck me as troubling is how one defines gender categories if you don't anchor them on biology. What makes someone. "male" for example, if it isn't possession of a penis and testicles? " Well if gender is a social concept, surely transgenderism is one as well ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depends how closed his mind is I think. Some people can be educated on these kinda things, others can't, which is a shame. The thing was, there was no reason to think he was closed minded.He invited people to discuss with him but,there didn't seem to be anyone around that day who could string a coherent sentence together. (A damning indictment of US education, if you ask me). Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
TBH I very much doubt he would change his mind under any circumstances (you have to wonder about his motivation for posing the problem in the first place) but,I'd have enjoyed the discussion too."I guess the other question to consider is how "edited" in favour of his statement the video was? May well have been that a lot of very articulate people were able to put up compelling arguments but that didn't fit his statement so they were not included? Personally I don't necessarily look at gender but the individual - but can accept there are various different flavours beyond simply male and female | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My own views on the subject are,the shortened version, yes,there are two genders.There is 'Masculine' and 'Feminine'.These two names have been arbitrarily assigned to them and have nothing to do with 'Male' or 'Female'. There are characteristics displayed by people that we consider to be feminine or masculine. Male people sometimes exhibit feminine characteristics and female people sometimes exhibit masculine characteristics. i.e not all males are masculine and not all masculine people are male.Not all females are feminine and not all feminine people are female. Further more,not all masculine people are equally masculine and not all feminine people are equally feminine. (we are not all Marilyn Monroe or Clint Eastwood). So,the two genders named 'masculine' or 'feminine' are just two ends of a spectrum of behaviors,attitudes and feelings.There is nothing in our physical make up that firmly states where on that spectrum we lie. It is more about personality than about physicality. Not only that,we do not necessarily sit at the same point on that spectrum all the time. " Isn't that basically a argument that gender doesn't exist? None of us has 100% stereotypical female or 100% stereotypical male characteristics. Hence masculinity and feminity do not exist as pure forms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depends how closed his mind is I think. Some people can be educated on these kinda things, others can't, which is a shame. The thing was, there was no reason to think he was closed minded.He invited people to discuss with him but,there didn't seem to be anyone around that day who could string a coherent sentence together. (A damning indictment of US education, if you ask me). Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
TBH I very much doubt he would change his mind under any circumstances (you have to wonder about his motivation for posing the problem in the first place) but,I'd have enjoyed the discussion too.
I guess the other question to consider is how "edited" in favour of his statement the video was? May well have been that a lot of very articulate people were able to put up compelling arguments but that didn't fit his statement so they were not included?
Personally I don't necessarily look at gender but the individual - but can accept there are various different flavours beyond simply male and female "If there were people who gave good arguments,I would have liked to hear his rebuttal of those arguments too. A one sided debate is never very interesting but,I do like a good argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"this was the title of a You tube that I saw recently. This guy sat on a bench in a US college campus with that written on a sign and invited people to come discuss it with him,see if they could change his mind. It is quite possible that the only people passing that day just happened to be the most inarticulate,lacking in eloquence, mumbling fuckwits in town but,no one managed to give a convincing argument against this guys proposition. I'd have quite enjoyed the chance for a discussion on this subject but,I'd like to see what others think. Could you have changed this guys mind? " Wouldn't have wanted to try. His position is inarguable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My own views on the subject are,the shortened version, yes,there are two genders.There is 'Masculine' and 'Feminine'.These two names have been arbitrarily assigned to them and have nothing to do with 'Male' or 'Female'. There are characteristics displayed by people that we consider to be feminine or masculine. Male people sometimes exhibit feminine characteristics and female people sometimes exhibit masculine characteristics. i.e not all males are masculine and not all masculine people are male.Not all females are feminine and not all feminine people are female. Further more,not all masculine people are equally masculine and not all feminine people are equally feminine. (we are not all Marilyn Monroe or Clint Eastwood). So,the two genders named 'masculine' or 'feminine' are just two ends of a spectrum of behaviors,attitudes and feelings.There is nothing in our physical make up that firmly states where on that spectrum we lie. It is more about personality than about physicality. Not only that,we do not necessarily sit at the same point on that spectrum all the time. Isn't that basically a argument that gender doesn't exist? None of us has 100% stereotypical female or 100% stereotypical male characteristics. Hence masculinity and feminity do not exist as pure forms. " It could be an argument that 'gender' as in stereotypical gender roles and behaviours,have no real basis in nature. Other than maternal instinct (which is not universally felt) I'm not sure I can think of any basis in nature for these roles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I guess the other question to consider is how "edited" in favour of his statement the video was? May well have been that a lot of very articulate people were able to put up compelling arguments but that didn't fit his statement so they were not included? Personally I don't necessarily look at gender but the individual - but can accept there are various different flavours beyond simply male and female If there were people who gave good arguments,I would have liked to hear his rebuttal of those arguments too. A one sided debate is never very interesting but,I do like a good argument." Oh me too - a good debate even if both parties never agree is always interesting, but sadly too often I find this kind of video is deliberately skewed or even staged to make a point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My own views on the subject are,the shortened version, yes,there are two genders.There is 'Masculine' and 'Feminine'.These two names have been arbitrarily assigned to them and have nothing to do with 'Male' or 'Female'. There are characteristics displayed by people that we consider to be feminine or masculine. Male people sometimes exhibit feminine characteristics and female people sometimes exhibit masculine characteristics. i.e not all males are masculine and not all masculine people are male.Not all females are feminine and not all feminine people are female. Further more,not all masculine people are equally masculine and not all feminine people are equally feminine. (we are not all Marilyn Monroe or Clint Eastwood). So,the two genders named 'masculine' or 'feminine' are just two ends of a spectrum of behaviors,attitudes and feelings.There is nothing in our physical make up that firmly states where on that spectrum we lie. It is more about personality than about physicality. Not only that,we do not necessarily sit at the same point on that spectrum all the time. Isn't that basically a argument that gender doesn't exist? None of us has 100% stereotypical female or 100% stereotypical male characteristics. Hence masculinity and feminity do not exist as pure forms. It could be an argument that 'gender' as in stereotypical gender roles and behaviours,have no real basis in nature. Other than maternal instinct (which is not universally felt) I'm not sure I can think of any basis in nature for these roles." I agree with that. It seems to me that on the one hand there are gender roles that are socially constructed and subject to change and physical biology which isn't. Hence it makes no sense to me to say, call someone a man, purely because they perform social roles that are considered masculine in the UK in 2018. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My own views on the subject are,the shortened version, yes,there are two genders.There is 'Masculine' and 'Feminine'.These two names have been arbitrarily assigned to them and have nothing to do with 'Male' or 'Female'. There are characteristics displayed by people that we consider to be feminine or masculine. Male people sometimes exhibit feminine characteristics and female people sometimes exhibit masculine characteristics. i.e not all males are masculine and not all masculine people are male.Not all females are feminine and not all feminine people are female. Further more,not all masculine people are equally masculine and not all feminine people are equally feminine. (we are not all Marilyn Monroe or Clint Eastwood). So,the two genders named 'masculine' or 'feminine' are just two ends of a spectrum of behaviors,attitudes and feelings.There is nothing in our physical make up that firmly states where on that spectrum we lie. It is more about personality than about physicality. Not only that,we do not necessarily sit at the same point on that spectrum all the time. Isn't that basically a argument that gender doesn't exist? None of us has 100% stereotypical female or 100% stereotypical male characteristics. Hence masculinity and feminity do not exist as pure forms. It could be an argument that 'gender' as in stereotypical gender roles and behaviours,have no real basis in nature. Other than maternal instinct (which is not universally felt) I'm not sure I can think of any basis in nature for these roles. I agree with that. It seems to me that on the one hand there are gender roles that are socially constructed and subject to change and physical biology which isn't. Hence it makes no sense to me to say, call someone a man, purely because they perform social roles that are considered masculine in the UK in 2018." Would you say then ,that whether or not some one is Male or Female is dictated by their physical form,whereas whether or not someone is Masculine or Feminine is dictated by how ever they wish to be (or by how ever others perceive them to be)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him "Go on then... Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My own views on the subject are,the shortened version, yes,there are two genders.There is 'Masculine' and 'Feminine'.These two names have been arbitrarily assigned to them and have nothing to do with 'Male' or 'Female'. There are characteristics displayed by people that we consider to be feminine or masculine. Male people sometimes exhibit feminine characteristics and female people sometimes exhibit masculine characteristics. i.e not all males are masculine and not all masculine people are male.Not all females are feminine and not all feminine people are female. Further more,not all masculine people are equally masculine and not all feminine people are equally feminine. (we are not all Marilyn Monroe or Clint Eastwood). So,the two genders named 'masculine' or 'feminine' are just two ends of a spectrum of behaviors,attitudes and feelings.There is nothing in our physical make up that firmly states where on that spectrum we lie. It is more about personality than about physicality. Not only that,we do not necessarily sit at the same point on that spectrum all the time. Isn't that basically a argument that gender doesn't exist? None of us has 100% stereotypical female or 100% stereotypical male characteristics. Hence masculinity and feminity do not exist as pure forms. It could be an argument that 'gender' as in stereotypical gender roles and behaviours,have no real basis in nature. Other than maternal instinct (which is not universally felt) I'm not sure I can think of any basis in nature for these roles. I agree with that. It seems to me that on the one hand there are gender roles that are socially constructed and subject to change and physical biology which isn't. Hence it makes no sense to me to say, call someone a man, purely because they perform social roles that are considered masculine in the UK in 2018. Would you say then ,that whether or not some one is Male or Female is dictated by their physical form,whereas whether or not someone is Masculine or Feminine is dictated by how ever they wish to be (or by how ever others perceive them to be)?" Not quite. For words to have any meaning, there has to be an objective definition to them. The word "masculine" has a certain meaning within the social context of the UK in 2018. If you call yourself masculine but don't conform to that definition then I would say you were incorrect. Identity can never be entirely subjective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more."I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand. And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread. If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me "Shame. I'd like to have read that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that "I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course. If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else. That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
"That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc. Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone? "Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate "Nooooo. I once spent all night hiding in motorway services. Started off in the gents toilets, which smelled pretty bad, so switched to the ladies, which was far more pleasant. Also I have lived in accomodation with mixed shower blocks. There was a lot of dropped soap.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth. If somebody cuts off a little a bit here or implants a little bit there and wants to call themself something else, that’s fine, it doesn’t effect my life. Just don’t resort to insults when I disagree with you" Isn't it nice when a discussion can proceed without resorting to personal insults. part of what I didn't like about the you tube clip was that I probably wouldn't be on the same wavelength as the guy but, a woman turned up who possibly would be on the same page as me and her only contribution was to say ''Fuck you''. Quite honestly,I don't really want people like that on my side or fighting my corner. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate "My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences. "Totally! That's why I think many things should be unisex | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Physically you are born either Male or Female so in that sense then yes there are only 2 sexes. I'm not particularly bothered what a person calls themselves after 18 . That's up to them ." Sex is different to gender. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men as tv/ts have been using the female toilets forever anyway. But to allow men into female only spaces just because they self identify as female is dangerous. Unisex toilets would be horrific and become male only in actuality, and use of accessible toilets would be abused even more. ? It's also wrong to allow them to enter as a female in sport. There is no parity. " We'll have to agree to disagree on the toilets
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences. "What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)? If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
Totally! That's why I think many things should be unisex "So should biological males who self identify as men be able to enter womens sporting events and enter battered women's shelters? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?"Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So should biological males who self identify as men be able to enter womens sporting events" Sport is divided on sex, not gender. And there are rules on this already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men. "But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?"In 99% of cases its obvious whether someone is biologically male or female. For the other 1% there is no hard and fast rule. I have no issue with people who were not born female but who live as women using female facilities. . My issue is with self definition. If we can't question a self definition of gender then we would have to accept, for example, that a male rapist who says he identifies as female would be entitled to be housed in a female prison. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So should biological males who self identify as men be able to enter womens sporting events Sport is divided on sex, not gender. And there are rules on this already. " And that's altogether fine. If self definition has no social consequences because sex distinction in society will remain, I have no problem with it. Anyone can say they are anything as long as it doesn't effect others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?"Where did I say that? Nope, nowhere. I said hat I think there should be seperate cubical for everyone. Not one big room, not open spaces. Seperate cubical, like there are for toilets but with showers and big enough to change in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So should biological males who self identify as men be able to enter womens sporting events Sport is divided on sex, not gender. And there are rules on this already. And that's altogether fine. If self definition has no social consequences because sex distinction in society will remain, I have no problem with it. Anyone can say they are anything as long as it doesn't effect others. " Ditto | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Where did I say that?
Nope, nowhere. I said hat I think there should be seperate cubical for everyone. Not one big room, not open spaces. Seperate cubical, like there are for toilets but with showers and big enough to change in."Good luck getting the planning space. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
In 99% of cases its obvious whether someone is biologically male or female. For the other 1% there is no hard and fast rule. I have no issue with people who were not born female but who live as women using female facilities. . My issue is with self definition.
If we can't question a self definition of gender then we would have to accept, for example, that a male rapist who says he identifies as female would be entitled to be housed in a female prison. "And yet a female who is secretly looking at child porn or abusing kids can wander naked into a ladies changing room with kids everywhere and no one minds? Privacy and security for all I say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we can't question a self definition of gender then we would have to accept, for example, that a male rapist who says he identifies as female would be entitled to be housed in a female prison. " No one is saying that self definition trumps all other considerations in all circumstances. It's not really helpful to the ordinary trans person to hunt for extreme examples of when people could try to use their gender as a way to gain an advantage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So should biological males who self identify as men be able to enter womens sporting events Sport is divided on sex, not gender. And there are rules on this already. And that's altogether fine. If self definition has no social consequences because sex distinction in society will remain, I have no problem with it. Anyone can say they are anything as long as it doesn't effect others. " . I'm a fucking fairy! No not that type, the bottom of the garden type | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Where did I say that?
Nope, nowhere. I said hat I think there should be seperate cubical for everyone. Not one big room, not open spaces. Seperate cubical, like there are for toilets but with showers and big enough to change in.
Good luck getting the planning space."My local sports centre has exactly this. It's not a posh place, government funded and run. They have no issues. Most changing rooms now have seperate showers and changing cubicles anyway now so it'd actually probably cost less to put them all in the same place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?"Apart from that no one should ever be forced to go to sports centres at all, what possible way is there to differentiate between male and female people in those sort of circumstances,other than by physical attributes? Facilities are often labelled as 'Ladies' and 'gents' or 'M' and 'F'. It could be argued that those are all open to interpretation and self identification. They could be labelled as 'Penis' and 'No penis' but who is going to check? We'd still have to take peoples word for it in most circumstances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Where did I say that?
Nope, nowhere. I said hat I think there should be seperate cubical for everyone. Not one big room, not open spaces. Seperate cubical, like there are for toilets but with showers and big enough to change in.
Good luck getting the planning space.
My local sports centre has exactly this. It's not a posh place, government funded and run. They have no issues. Most changing rooms now have seperate showers and changing cubicles anyway now so it'd actually probably cost less to put them all in the same place."No they don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Where did I say that?
Nope, nowhere. I said hat I think there should be seperate cubical for everyone. Not one big room, not open spaces. Seperate cubical, like there are for toilets but with showers and big enough to change in.
Good luck getting the planning space.
My local sports centre has exactly this. It's not a posh place, government funded and run. They have no issues. Most changing rooms now have seperate showers and changing cubicles anyway now so it'd actually probably cost less to put them all in the same place.
No they don't. "OK...most I've been to personally | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One if the biggest problems is that people don’t respect others opinions because they don’t agree, that’s why this post was always going to get argumentative ha ha " You don't need to agree to respect someone's opinion...it's a shame some people seem to be unable to grasp that concept. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we can't question a self definition of gender then we would have to accept, for example, that a male rapist who says he identifies as female would be entitled to be housed in a female prison. No one is saying that self definition trumps all other considerations in all circumstances. It's not really helpful to the ordinary trans person to hunt for extreme examples of when people could try to use their gender as a way to gain an advantage. " But then if you accept that self identity doesn't trump everything then you are accepting gender isn't purely down to what an individual thinks. When it matters gender has to be defined socially, which means some people will be told their gender identification is wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me "Not a subject for PM. If it's not public it's not really a debate. Sorry also posting only on work breaks. So a pretty crap defence position too... If a birth female later identifies as male, is there more than 2 genders? Or still male or female to choose from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Apart from that no one should ever be forced to go to sports centres at all, what possible way is there to differentiate between male and female people in those sort of circumstances,other than by physical attributes?
Facilities are often labelled as 'Ladies' and 'gents' or 'M' and 'F'.
It could be argued that those are all open to interpretation and self identification.
They could be labelled as 'Penis' and 'No penis' but who is going to check? We'd still have to take peoples word for it in most circumstances."Thats obtuse. If I want to go to a sports centre or anywhere else, i don't want to be in a vulnerable position which I would be if I were forced to share the place I was naked with men. As I've already said ts/tv have been using female spaces forever but they've been able to do so because they haven't looked or behaved like men. Allowing anyone into those spaces just because they self identify as female is a threat to women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Where did I say that?
Nope, nowhere. I said hat I think there should be seperate cubical for everyone. Not one big room, not open spaces. Seperate cubical, like there are for toilets but with showers and big enough to change in.
Good luck getting the planning space.
My local sports centre has exactly this. It's not a posh place, government funded and run. They have no issues. Most changing rooms now have seperate showers and changing cubicles anyway now so it'd actually probably cost less to put them all in the same place.
No they don't. "I attend a large sports centre in central London.. There are no cubicles in the male changing room and when I temporarily used the female ones when they refurbishing the male ones found out there were none there either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Where did I say that?
Nope, nowhere. I said hat I think there should be seperate cubical for everyone. Not one big room, not open spaces. Seperate cubical, like there are for toilets but with showers and big enough to change in.
Good luck getting the planning space.
My local sports centre has exactly this. It's not a posh place, government funded and run. They have no issues. Most changing rooms now have seperate showers and changing cubicles anyway now so it'd actually probably cost less to put them all in the same place.
No they don't.
OK...most I've been to personally "Toilets with their own changing room and shower. Nah. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Love a bit of Crowder. Saw that very debate. It was interesting to see what side of that debate got abusive and supercilious rather than attempt to put their point across in a calm and controlled fashion. Some of the very valid points on here parallel what’s going on with the Swimming ponds on Hampstead Heath at the moment. People who have identified themselves as females to be able to enter the female only swimming spaces. This has caused users very real concern. " That was what prompted me to start this thread. People who were, ostensibly, arguing my case arguing it using methods that I don't like and try not to use myself. I'd rather they didn't. I'd much rather have an intelligent,reasonable discussion which this seems to have been. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we can't question a self definition of gender then we would have to accept, for example, that a male rapist who says he identifies as female would be entitled to be housed in a female prison. No one is saying that self definition trumps all other considerations in all circumstances. It's not really helpful to the ordinary trans person to hunt for extreme examples of when people could try to use their gender as a way to gain an advantage. But then if you accept that self identity doesn't trump everything then you are accepting gender isn't purely down to what an individual thinks. When it matters gender has to be defined socially, which means some people will be told their gender identification is wrong. " You're talking about situations in which people pretend to be transgender in order to game a system. There's very obviously a difference when it comes to dealing with obvious frauds (of which I can't imagine there would ever be any kind of significant number). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Not a subject for PM. If it's not public it's not really a debate. Sorry also posting only on work breaks. So a pretty crap defence position too...
If a birth female later identifies as male, is there more than 2 genders? Or still male or female to choose from? "OK... I can't really be any clearer. I think people should be able to identify as whatever they want. It really is that simple for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we can't question a self definition of gender then we would have to accept, for example, that a male rapist who says he identifies as female would be entitled to be housed in a female prison. No one is saying that self definition trumps all other considerations in all circumstances. It's not really helpful to the ordinary trans person to hunt for extreme examples of when people could try to use their gender as a way to gain an advantage. But then if you accept that self identity doesn't trump everything then you are accepting gender isn't purely down to what an individual thinks. When it matters gender has to be defined socially, which means some people will be told their gender identification is wrong. You're talking about situations in which people pretend to be transgender in order to game a system. There's very obviously a difference when it comes to dealing with obvious frauds (of which I can't imagine there would ever be any kind of significant number)." So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Love a bit of Crowder. Saw that very debate. It was interesting to see what side of that debate got abusive and supercilious rather than attempt to put their point across in a calm and controlled fashion. Some of the very valid points on here parallel what’s going on with the Swimming ponds on Hampstead Heath at the moment. People who have identified themselves as females to be able to enter the female only swimming spaces. This has caused users very real concern. That was what prompted me to start this thread. People who were, ostensibly, arguing my case arguing it using methods that I don't like and try not to use myself. I'd rather they didn't. I'd much rather have an intelligent,reasonable discussion which this seems to have been." His gun control and free speech ones are good watches as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am a member of two gyms. All are group change one has communal showers the other has small partitions. It was the same at Virgin active. Where I swim has cubicles for all. " . Sign me up..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Not a subject for PM. If it's not public it's not really a debate. Sorry also posting only on work breaks. So a pretty crap defence position too...
If a birth female later identifies as male, is there more than 2 genders? Or still male or female to choose from?
OK...
I can't really be any clearer. I think people should be able to identify as whatever they want. It really is that simple for me."But there's a difference between self identify and the practical consequences thereof. If I identify as a seven year old girl, you might indulge me. If I start demanding to attend infant school, I very much doubt you would. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Not a subject for PM. If it's not public it's not really a debate. Sorry also posting only on work breaks. So a pretty crap defence position too...
If a birth female later identifies as male, is there more than 2 genders? Or still male or female to choose from?
OK...
I can't really be any clearer. I think people should be able to identify as whatever they want. It really is that simple for me."If only life was that simple, we have to try and make sense of things that make no sense, therefore we have 2 genders. How does the world function if we on a whim change that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Where did I say that?
Nope, nowhere. I said hat I think there should be seperate cubical for everyone. Not one big room, not open spaces. Seperate cubical, like there are for toilets but with showers and big enough to change in.
Good luck getting the planning space.
My local sports centre has exactly this. It's not a posh place, government funded and run. They have no issues. Most changing rooms now have seperate showers and changing cubicles anyway now so it'd actually probably cost less to put them all in the same place.
No they don't.
OK...most I've been to personally
Toilets with their own changing room and shower. Nah."I didn't say that either... 
I'll repeat myself once more.
I think it would be a good idea to have unisex toilets, as in cubicles in the same room for all. I also think that seperate shower cubicles and seperate changing cubicles are a sensible idea. The majority of places with these facilities that I have personally been to have this.
I hope that's made it clearer, perhaps my wording was poor. I'm not suggesting everyone gets their own individual luxury bathroom ffs.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am a member of two gyms. All are group change one has communal showers the other has small partitions. It was the same at Virgin active. Where I swim has cubicles for all. . Sign me up.. "Ha ha sorry I meant group change gender specific. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Apart from that no one should ever be forced to go to sports centres at all, what possible way is there to differentiate between male and female people in those sort of circumstances,other than by physical attributes?
Facilities are often labelled as 'Ladies' and 'gents' or 'M' and 'F'.
It could be argued that those are all open to interpretation and self identification.
They could be labelled as 'Penis' and 'No penis' but who is going to check? We'd still have to take peoples word for it in most circumstances.
Thats obtuse. If I want to go to a sports centre or anywhere else, i don't want to be in a vulnerable position which I would be if I were forced to share the place I was naked with men.
As I've already said ts/tv have been using female spaces forever but they've been able to do so because they haven't looked or behaved like men. Allowing anyone into those spaces just because they self identify as female is a threat to women."Even so,once someone is in the changing room,getting changed,getting naked,,,,well,it's only certain physical attributes that differentiate which changing room they should be in or in which changing room they don't make other people feel uncomfortable. There is only one way to check,really isn't there? And it's not by checking birth certificates,blood tests or by self identity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? " No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Not a subject for PM. If it's not public it's not really a debate. Sorry also posting only on work breaks. So a pretty crap defence position too...
If a birth female later identifies as male, is there more than 2 genders? Or still male or female to choose from?
OK...
I can't really be any clearer. I think people should be able to identify as whatever they want. It really is that simple for me.
But there's a difference between self identify and the practical consequences thereof. If I identify as a seven year old girl, you might indulge me. If I start demanding to attend infant school, I very much doubt you would. "Not quite the same thing is it... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Apart from that no one should ever be forced to go to sports centres at all, what possible way is there to differentiate between male and female people in those sort of circumstances,other than by physical attributes?
Facilities are often labelled as 'Ladies' and 'gents' or 'M' and 'F'.
It could be argued that those are all open to interpretation and self identification.
They could be labelled as 'Penis' and 'No penis' but who is going to check? We'd still have to take peoples word for it in most circumstances.
Thats obtuse. If I want to go to a sports centre or anywhere else, i don't want to be in a vulnerable position which I would be if I were forced to share the place I was naked with men.
As I've already said ts/tv have been using female spaces forever but they've been able to do so because they haven't looked or behaved like men. Allowing anyone into those spaces just because they self identify as female is a threat to women.
Even so,once someone is in the changing room,getting changed,getting naked,,,,well,it's only certain physical attributes that differentiate which changing room they should be in or in which changing room they don't make other people feel uncomfortable.
There is only one way to check,really isn't there? And it's not by checking birth certificates,blood tests or by self identity."And by the time we're all naked it's too late. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am a member of two gyms. All are group change one has communal showers the other has small partitions. It was the same at Virgin active. Where I swim has cubicles for all. . Sign me up..
Ha ha sorry I meant group change gender specific. ". I'm not fussy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns." Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns." When you start delving into detail then it’s less clearer, it’s a mad mad world but it keeps moving regardless | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time." Why do you think that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a popular opinion nowadays, but there are only two gender." There are only 2 that’s a fact but a man made fact | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Apart from that no one should ever be forced to go to sports centres at all, what possible way is there to differentiate between male and female people in those sort of circumstances,other than by physical attributes?
Facilities are often labelled as 'Ladies' and 'gents' or 'M' and 'F'.
It could be argued that those are all open to interpretation and self identification.
They could be labelled as 'Penis' and 'No penis' but who is going to check? We'd still have to take peoples word for it in most circumstances.
Thats obtuse. If I want to go to a sports centre or anywhere else, i don't want to be in a vulnerable position which I would be if I were forced to share the place I was naked with men.
As I've already said ts/tv have been using female spaces forever but they've been able to do so because they haven't looked or behaved like men. Allowing anyone into those spaces just because they self identify as female is a threat to women.
Even so,once someone is in the changing room,getting changed,getting naked,,,,well,it's only certain physical attributes that differentiate which changing room they should be in or in which changing room they don't make other people feel uncomfortable.
There is only one way to check,really isn't there? And it's not by checking birth certificates,blood tests or by self identity.
And by the time we're all naked it's too late. "Which is exactly why we should all have seperate places to shower, go loo loo and change. There are plenty of deranged women as men and I personally don't feel any safer in a female only space than a unisex space. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time." I don't think you've read my comment properly. I'm saying a male rapist pretending to identify as a woman to cheat the prison system would rightfully be challenged and stopped from doing so. And that I don't think it's very likely that a man would try to do this, as it wouldn't work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. Why do you think that?" Omg. Men want access to women only spaces by virtue of self identifying as female. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. I don't think you've read my comment properly. I'm saying a male rapist pretending to identify as a woman to cheat the prison system would rightfully be challenged and stopped from doing so. And that I don't think it's very likely that a man would try to do this, as it wouldn't work. " . I would  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Apart from that no one should ever be forced to go to sports centres at all, what possible way is there to differentiate between male and female people in those sort of circumstances,other than by physical attributes?
Facilities are often labelled as 'Ladies' and 'gents' or 'M' and 'F'.
It could be argued that those are all open to interpretation and self identification.
They could be labelled as 'Penis' and 'No penis' but who is going to check? We'd still have to take peoples word for it in most circumstances.
Thats obtuse. If I want to go to a sports centre or anywhere else, i don't want to be in a vulnerable position which I would be if I were forced to share the place I was naked with men.
As I've already said ts/tv have been using female spaces forever but they've been able to do so because they haven't looked or behaved like men. Allowing anyone into those spaces just because they self identify as female is a threat to women.
Even so,once someone is in the changing room,getting changed,getting naked,,,,well,it's only certain physical attributes that differentiate which changing room they should be in or in which changing room they don't make other people feel uncomfortable.
There is only one way to check,really isn't there? And it's not by checking birth certificates,blood tests or by self identity.
And by the time we're all naked it's too late. "Exactly. So do you agree with my suggestion of labelling changing and toilet facilities as 'P' and 'No P' ? It would possibly be a whole lot clearer than the current systems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. I don't think you've read my comment properly. I'm saying a male rapist pretending to identify as a woman to cheat the prison system would rightfully be challenged and stopped from doing so. And that I don't think it's very likely that a man would try to do this, as it wouldn't work. " If self identification is allowed then yeah, they would. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. Why do you think that? Omg. Men want access to women only spaces by virtue of self identifying as female. " . I thought it was all a bit of crazy nonsense myself at first but these facts are bringing me round to see it in a different light | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Apart from that no one should ever be forced to go to sports centres at all, what possible way is there to differentiate between male and female people in those sort of circumstances,other than by physical attributes?
Facilities are often labelled as 'Ladies' and 'gents' or 'M' and 'F'.
It could be argued that those are all open to interpretation and self identification.
They could be labelled as 'Penis' and 'No penis' but who is going to check? We'd still have to take peoples word for it in most circumstances.
Thats obtuse. If I want to go to a sports centre or anywhere else, i don't want to be in a vulnerable position which I would be if I were forced to share the place I was naked with men.
As I've already said ts/tv have been using female spaces forever but they've been able to do so because they haven't looked or behaved like men. Allowing anyone into those spaces just because they self identify as female is a threat to women.
Even so,once someone is in the changing room,getting changed,getting naked,,,,well,it's only certain physical attributes that differentiate which changing room they should be in or in which changing room they don't make other people feel uncomfortable.
There is only one way to check,really isn't there? And it's not by checking birth certificates,blood tests or by self identity.
And by the time we're all naked it's too late.
Exactly. So do you agree with my suggestion of labelling changing and toilet facilities as 'P' and 'No P' ?
It would possibly be a whole lot clearer than the current systems."Why not? Or how about penis and vagina rather than making it completely male centric. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. Why do you think that? Omg. Men want access to women only spaces by virtue of self identifying as female. " I’m only saying that we all have an opinion and everyone is entitled to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. Why do you think that? Omg. Men want access to women only spaces by virtue of self identifying as female. " You're focusing a lot on "men", we're discussing everyone aren't we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. Why do you think that? Omg. Men want access to women only spaces by virtue of self identifying as female. I’m only saying that we all have an opinion and everyone is entitled to it." They're not entitled to be agreed with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK... I can't really be any clearer. I think people should be able to identify as whatever they want. It really is that simple for me." My view is a little more complex. I feel we have to share the world we have. If anyone for any reason wants to exist outside defined boundaries the prime duty of acceptance is on them not all others in society. E.g. if a male identifies as female don't enter sports competitions. Be considerate and discrete if you wish to use a female public toilet or changing room. It's not ideal, but there is not space to cater to all. Especially if you add sexual preference to the equation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. Why do you think that? Omg. Men want access to women only spaces by virtue of self identifying as female. You're focusing a lot on "men", we're discussing everyone aren't we? " Men are far more of a threat to women than women are to men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. I don't think you've read my comment properly. I'm saying a male rapist pretending to identify as a woman to cheat the prison system would rightfully be challenged and stopped from doing so. And that I don't think it's very likely that a man would try to do this, as it wouldn't work. If self identification is allowed then yeah, they would. " They really wouldn't. Again, no one is saying self identification trumps all other considerations and circumstances, especially to such ab extreme a degree as this example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns." Agreed. I have no problem with people saying they are whatever they want to be. However, having a legal gender identity has certain social consequences. Thus if you want to legally change your gender identity there has to be some sort of objective test. Otherwise you would get the problems which I have mentioned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK... I can't really be any clearer. I think people should be able to identify as whatever they want. It really is that simple for me. My view is a little more complex. I feel we have to share the world we have. If anyone for any reason wants to exist outside defined boundaries the prime duty of acceptance is on them not all others in society. E.g. if a male identifies as female don't enter sports competitions. Be considerate and discrete if you wish to use a female public toilet or changing room. It's not ideal, but there is not space to cater to all. Especially if you add sexual preference to the equation. " That's fair enough...you don't have to agree with me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. Why do you think that? Omg. Men want access to women only spaces by virtue of self identifying as female. I’m only saying that we all have an opinion and everyone is entitled to it. They're not entitled to be agreed with." Of course not x that’s why we live in a democratic society to have a free voice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. Why do you think that? Omg. Men want access to women only spaces by virtue of self identifying as female. You're focusing a lot on "men", we're discussing everyone aren't we? Men are far more of a threat to women than women are to men." We'll disagree on that too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. I don't think you've read my comment properly. I'm saying a male rapist pretending to identify as a woman to cheat the prison system would rightfully be challenged and stopped from doing so. And that I don't think it's very likely that a man would try to do this, as it wouldn't work. If self identification is allowed then yeah, they would. They really wouldn't. Again, no one is saying self identification trumps all other considerations and circumstances, especially to such ab extreme a degree as this example. " Many trans are saying exactly that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK... I can't really be any clearer. I think people should be able to identify as whatever they want. It really is that simple for me. My view is a little more complex. I feel we have to share the world we have. If anyone for any reason wants to exist outside defined boundaries the prime duty of acceptance is on them not all others in society. E.g. if a male identifies as female don't enter sports competitions. Be considerate and discrete if you wish to use a female public toilet or changing room. It's not ideal, but there is not space to cater to all. Especially if you add sexual preference to the equation. " So I agree we are all just trying to get through life, so why should some people compromise more than others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. I don't think you've read my comment properly. I'm saying a male rapist pretending to identify as a woman to cheat the prison system would rightfully be challenged and stopped from doing so. And that I don't think it's very likely that a man would try to do this, as it wouldn't work. If self identification is allowed then yeah, they would. They really wouldn't. Again, no one is saying self identification trumps all other considerations and circumstances, especially to such ab extreme a degree as this example. Many trans are saying exactly that." Indeed. As I understand it, many trans rights advocates say there should be no medical or legal tests and gender should be a matter of pure self identity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. I don't think you've read my comment properly. I'm saying a male rapist pretending to identify as a woman to cheat the prison system would rightfully be challenged and stopped from doing so. And that I don't think it's very likely that a man would try to do this, as it wouldn't work. If self identification is allowed then yeah, they would. They really wouldn't. Again, no one is saying self identification trumps all other considerations and circumstances, especially to such ab extreme a degree as this example. Many trans are saying exactly that." They're not. Stop looking for extremes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. I don't think you've read my comment properly. I'm saying a male rapist pretending to identify as a woman to cheat the prison system would rightfully be challenged and stopped from doing so. And that I don't think it's very likely that a man would try to do this, as it wouldn't work. If self identification is allowed then yeah, they would. They really wouldn't. Again, no one is saying self identification trumps all other considerations and circumstances, especially to such ab extreme a degree as this example. Many trans are saying exactly that." Oh and having worked with criminals for many years, you can bet your arse that if all a male criminal had to do as sign a piece of paper saying he was a woman to get into a woman's prison many would do just that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah, that's annoying. I'd have liked to have had a chat with him
Go on then...
Ignoring sexuality, sexual preference, and adult hermaphrodite... I am stating there are only 2 genders. Convince me there are more.
I'm not sure I need to convince you of anything...I'm also not sure you completely understand where I stand.
And it's not a conversation that could be had over a public forum without hijacking the entire thread.
If you want to have the discussion tho, feel free to pm me
Shame. I'd like to have read that
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't necessarily agree with many of the things I speak out on. I simply think that every person should be free to live their lives as they want to without any grief or judgement from others. Providing they're not hurting anyone of course.
If a biological male would rather be referred to as she and identifies as something other than male, who am I to tell them they're wrong? It doesn't affect me, so I'll happily refer to them as "she" and be just as pleasant to them as I would anyone else.
That's my view on the whole debate...and most others that cause controversy.
That's fine as far as it goes but what happens when the biological male who identifies as a woman wants to use female changing rooms, enter women's sporting events etc etc.
Do we accept that on the basis of a self definition alone?
Well, I think all changing rooms and toilets should be unisex with seperate cubical myself...but that's another debate
My point is that really treating a biological male as a female does have social consequences that effect us all. If we accept self definition then we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
What exactly is meant by 'Biological male' and how do you tell? (It's not necessarily outwardly obvious). Do you mean 'physically male',(or physically female)?
If we are unable to distinguish people by biological differences which are not easy to test and are not always outwardly obvious,then what consequences could there be to someone using a changing room,for example?
Quite! My local sports centre has unisex changing rooms and showers, seperate cubical, no issues
It would be barbaric imo to force a trans woman post or pre op to change in a communal area full of men.
But it's OK for force a woman to share female spaces with men?
Apart from that no one should ever be forced to go to sports centres at all, what possible way is there to differentiate between male and female people in those sort of circumstances,other than by physical attributes?
Facilities are often labelled as 'Ladies' and 'gents' or 'M' and 'F'.
It could be argued that those are all open to interpretation and self identification.
They could be labelled as 'Penis' and 'No penis' but who is going to check? We'd still have to take peoples word for it in most circumstances.
Thats obtuse. If I want to go to a sports centre or anywhere else, i don't want to be in a vulnerable position which I would be if I were forced to share the place I was naked with men.
As I've already said ts/tv have been using female spaces forever but they've been able to do so because they haven't looked or behaved like men. Allowing anyone into those spaces just because they self identify as female is a threat to women.
Even so,once someone is in the changing room,getting changed,getting naked,,,,well,it's only certain physical attributes that differentiate which changing room they should be in or in which changing room they don't make other people feel uncomfortable.
There is only one way to check,really isn't there? And it's not by checking birth certificates,blood tests or by self identity.
And by the time we're all naked it's too late.
Exactly. So do you agree with my suggestion of labelling changing and toilet facilities as 'P' and 'No P' ?
It would possibly be a whole lot clearer than the current systems.
Why not? Or how about penis and vagina rather than making it completely male centric."It seems perfectly reasonable to me and the reasons for 'P' or 'Not P' are not so much male centricity as simply that penises are external and obvious whereas to check for a vagina would involve more invasive probing than would be reasonable in the circumstances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you would agree that the state should scrutinise everyone who seeks to change their gender and turn down those it doesn't think are genuine? No. The extreme (and unlikely) example of a male rapist claiming to be a woman in order to get into a woman's prison requires a different level of scrutiny to an every day person choosing their own pronouns. Unlikely? Why the fuck do mens wants have to come before womens needs the whole fucking time. I don't think you've read my comment properly. I'm saying a male rapist pretending to identify as a woman to cheat the prison system would rightfully be challenged and stopped from doing so. And that I don't think it's very likely that a man would try to do this, as it wouldn't work. If self identification is allowed then yeah, they would. They really wouldn't. Again, no one is saying self identification trumps all other considerations and circumstances, especially to such ab extreme a degree as this example. Many trans are saying exactly that. Oh and having worked with criminals for many years, you can bet your arse that if all a male criminal had to do as sign a piece of paper saying he was a woman to get into a woman's prison many would do just that. " Oh definitely! Doesn't make it ok for a trans woman to be placed into a male prison because she was born with a penis imo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth. If somebody cuts off a little a bit here or implants a little bit there and wants to call themself something else, that’s fine, it doesn’t effect my life. Just don’t resort to insults when I disagree with you Isn't it nice when a discussion can proceed without resorting to personal insults. part of what I didn't like about the you tube clip was that I probably wouldn't be on the same wavelength as the guy but, a woman turned up who possibly would be on the same page as me and her only contribution was to say ''Fuck you''. Quite honestly,I don't really want people like that on my side or fighting my corner." I would be on the same wave length as that guy, but I whole agree with you 100% that it shouldn’t resort to insults. I’d debate this all day but usually I start getting called ‘closed minded’ and ‘uneducated’ and those people just aren’t worth anyone’s time. As I said before, I’m on the stance that they’re only men and women, but if a man chooses to live as a woman or a woman chooses to live as a man, then I certainly wouldn’t try and stop them and I hope they live all the better for it. But I’m not going to change my beliefs for them the same way I wouldn’t expect anyone to change their beliefs to suit me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OK... I can't really be any clearer. I think people should be able to identify as whatever they want. It really is that simple for me. My view is a little more complex. I feel we have to share the world we have. If anyone for any reason wants to exist outside defined boundaries the prime duty of acceptance is on them not all others in society. E.g. if a male identifies as female don't enter sports competitions. Be considerate and discrete if you wish to use a female public toilet or changing room. It's not ideal, but there is not space to cater to all. Especially if you add sexual preference to the equation. That's fair enough...you don't have to agree with me "Still only male or female as gender types. There may be 6 billion divisions between them but still only two genders. Not seen any argument for a new gender definition yet. Most of the discussion seems to be more of a sexuality issue e.g. naked females sharing a changing room with a gay man are less threatened than they are by a gay woman. It would be a nicer world, if nobody was ever fearful or at risk. But unfortunatly we dont live there. So have to be alert for ourselves and others around us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth. If somebody cuts off a little a bit here or implants a little bit there and wants to call themself something else, that’s fine, it doesn’t effect my life. Just don’t resort to insults when I disagree with you Isn't it nice when a discussion can proceed without resorting to personal insults. part of what I didn't like about the you tube clip was that I probably wouldn't be on the same wavelength as the guy but, a woman turned up who possibly would be on the same page as me and her only contribution was to say ''Fuck you''. Quite honestly,I don't really want people like that on my side or fighting my corner. I would be on the same wave length as that guy, but I whole agree with you 100% that it shouldn’t resort to insults. I’d debate this all day but usually I start getting called ‘closed minded’ and ‘uneducated’ and those people just aren’t worth anyone’s time. As I said before, I’m on the stance that they’re only men and women, but if a man chooses to live as a woman or a woman chooses to live as a man, then I certainly wouldn’t try and stop them and I hope they live all the better for it. But I’m not going to change my beliefs for them the same way I wouldn’t expect anyone to change their beliefs to suit me." It’s far easier to resort to tactics like you have said here or the classic I can’t be bothered to debate you line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. " It's not really as simple as just deciding you want to be a man or woman.... I'd rather, as a tax payer, contribute to someone's gender reassignment surgery than contribute to the years and years of therapy, counselling and health care they may need if they're unable to fund it themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth. If somebody cuts off a little a bit here or implants a little bit there and wants to call themself something else, that’s fine, it doesn’t effect my life. Just don’t resort to insults when I disagree with you Isn't it nice when a discussion can proceed without resorting to personal insults. part of what I didn't like about the you tube clip was that I probably wouldn't be on the same wavelength as the guy but, a woman turned up who possibly would be on the same page as me and her only contribution was to say ''Fuck you''. Quite honestly,I don't really want people like that on my side or fighting my corner. I would be on the same wave length as that guy, but I whole agree with you 100% that it shouldn’t resort to insults. I’d debate this all day but usually I start getting called ‘closed minded’ and ‘uneducated’ and those people just aren’t worth anyone’s time. As I said before, I’m on the stance that they’re only men and women, but if a man chooses to live as a woman or a woman chooses to live as a man, then I certainly wouldn’t try and stop them and I hope they live all the better for it. But I’m not going to change my beliefs for them the same way I wouldn’t expect anyone to change their beliefs to suit me. It’s far easier to resort to tactics like you have said here or the classic I can’t be bothered to debate you line." I would disagree but I can’t be bothered to debate you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. " That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth. If somebody cuts off a little a bit here or implants a little bit there and wants to call themself something else, that’s fine, it doesn’t effect my life. Just don’t resort to insults when I disagree with you Isn't it nice when a discussion can proceed without resorting to personal insults. part of what I didn't like about the you tube clip was that I probably wouldn't be on the same wavelength as the guy but, a woman turned up who possibly would be on the same page as me and her only contribution was to say ''Fuck you''. Quite honestly,I don't really want people like that on my side or fighting my corner. I would be on the same wave length as that guy, but I whole agree with you 100% that it shouldn’t resort to insults. I’d debate this all day but usually I start getting called ‘closed minded’ and ‘uneducated’ and those people just aren’t worth anyone’s time. As I said before, I’m on the stance that they’re only men and women, but if a man chooses to live as a woman or a woman chooses to live as a man, then I certainly wouldn’t try and stop them and I hope they live all the better for it. But I’m not going to change my beliefs for them the same way I wouldn’t expect anyone to change their beliefs to suit me. It’s far easier to resort to tactics like you have said here or the classic I can’t be bothered to debate you line. I would disagree but I can’t be bothered to debate you "How close minded.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'." I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth. If somebody cuts off a little a bit here or implants a little bit there and wants to call themself something else, that’s fine, it doesn’t effect my life. Just don’t resort to insults when I disagree with you Isn't it nice when a discussion can proceed without resorting to personal insults. part of what I didn't like about the you tube clip was that I probably wouldn't be on the same wavelength as the guy but, a woman turned up who possibly would be on the same page as me and her only contribution was to say ''Fuck you''. Quite honestly,I don't really want people like that on my side or fighting my corner. I would be on the same wave length as that guy, but I whole agree with you 100% that it shouldn’t resort to insults. I’d debate this all day but usually I start getting called ‘closed minded’ and ‘uneducated’ and those people just aren’t worth anyone’s time. As I said before, I’m on the stance that they’re only men and women, but if a man chooses to live as a woman or a woman chooses to live as a man, then I certainly wouldn’t try and stop them and I hope they live all the better for it. But I’m not going to change my beliefs for them the same way I wouldn’t expect anyone to change their beliefs to suit me. It’s far easier to resort to tactics like you have said here or the classic I can’t be bothered to debate you line. I would disagree but I can’t be bothered to debate you
How close minded. "Resulting to insults? The go to strategy of the uneducated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth. If somebody cuts off a little a bit here or implants a little bit there and wants to call themself something else, that’s fine, it doesn’t effect my life. Just don’t resort to insults when I disagree with you Isn't it nice when a discussion can proceed without resorting to personal insults. part of what I didn't like about the you tube clip was that I probably wouldn't be on the same wavelength as the guy but, a woman turned up who possibly would be on the same page as me and her only contribution was to say ''Fuck you''. Quite honestly,I don't really want people like that on my side or fighting my corner. I would be on the same wave length as that guy, but I whole agree with you 100% that it shouldn’t resort to insults. I’d debate this all day but usually I start getting called ‘closed minded’ and ‘uneducated’ and those people just aren’t worth anyone’s time. As I said before, I’m on the stance that they’re only men and women, but if a man chooses to live as a woman or a woman chooses to live as a man, then I certainly wouldn’t try and stop them and I hope they live all the better for it. But I’m not going to change my beliefs for them the same way I wouldn’t expect anyone to change their beliefs to suit me. It’s far easier to resort to tactics like you have said here or the classic I can’t be bothered to debate you line. I would disagree but I can’t be bothered to debate you
How close minded.
Resulting to insults? The go to strategy of the uneducated "Snowflake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. It's not really as simple as just deciding you want to be a man or woman.... I'd rather, as a tax payer, contribute to someone's gender reassignment surgery than contribute to the years and years of therapy, counselling and health care they may need if they're unable to fund it themselves." I don’t believe they should be able to get funding for this either. As I said, if someone really needs something like this then they should be able to go pay for it themselves. There are very few cases of people who can not help themselves and we are surrounded by lazy idle people who can’t be arsed to do a days graft and take the easy option. The easy option should be much harder so that it s out the lazy but still enables those that actually need. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices " I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices " But then,it could be possible to argue that almost all medical needs are the result of lifestyle choices. Broken leg? Should have looked where you're going,your choice. Bowel cancer? Your choice not to have eaten a healthier diet. The only debate would really about where the line is drawn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices But then,it could be possible to argue that almost all medical needs are the result of lifestyle choices. Broken leg? Should have looked where you're going,your choice. Bowel cancer? Your choice not to have eaten a healthier diet. The only debate would really about where the line is drawn." Not looking where you are going is an accident, nothing accidental about smoking Christ knows how many a day, knowing it’s going to make u Ill and relying on the public funded safety net to sort u out afterwards | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. " How so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth. "The moment of birth seems like quite an arbitrary point to start from,it is just the moment of swapping a warm cosy environment for a harshly lit noisy one. There are more important defining moments in a persons development aren't there? Even the moment of conception has more influence on our final destiny than the moment of birth and quite a lot happens to us between just those two. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth.
The moment of birth seems like quite an arbitrary point to start from,it is just the moment of swapping a warm cosy environment for a harshly lit noisy one. There are more important defining moments in a persons development aren't there? Even the moment of conception has more influence on our final destiny than the moment of birth and quite a lot happens to us between just those two."From birth was probably the wrong choice of words. I meant to imply from the beginning or from the start | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? " I can say with absolute 100 % certainty that with out GRS,I would not be alive today. I'd say that's life saving treatment by any standards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth.
The moment of birth seems like quite an arbitrary point to start from,it is just the moment of swapping a warm cosy environment for a harshly lit noisy one. There are more important defining moments in a persons development aren't there? Even the moment of conception has more influence on our final destiny than the moment of birth and quite a lot happens to us between just those two.
From birth was probably the wrong choice of words. I meant to imply from the beginning or from the start"But from the very beginning,at conception,we are all sexless. We develop into the people we are today,by various means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? " Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth.
The moment of birth seems like quite an arbitrary point to start from,it is just the moment of swapping a warm cosy environment for a harshly lit noisy one. There are more important defining moments in a persons development aren't there? Even the moment of conception has more influence on our final destiny than the moment of birth and quite a lot happens to us between just those two.
From birth was probably the wrong choice of words. I meant to imply from the beginning or from the start
But from the very beginning,at conception,we are all sexless. We develop into the people we are today,by various means."I’m not sure how much further I can explain the context of my comment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth.
The moment of birth seems like quite an arbitrary point to start from,it is just the moment of swapping a warm cosy environment for a harshly lit noisy one. There are more important defining moments in a persons development aren't there? Even the moment of conception has more influence on our final destiny than the moment of birth and quite a lot happens to us between just those two.
From birth was probably the wrong choice of words. I meant to imply from the beginning or from the start
But from the very beginning,at conception,we are all sexless. We develop into the people we are today,by various means.
I’m not sure how much further I can explain the context of my comment"You don’t it’s just a debate, different opinions makes the world move on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth.
The moment of birth seems like quite an arbitrary point to start from,it is just the moment of swapping a warm cosy environment for a harshly lit noisy one. There are more important defining moments in a persons development aren't there? Even the moment of conception has more influence on our final destiny than the moment of birth and quite a lot happens to us between just those two.
From birth was probably the wrong choice of words. I meant to imply from the beginning or from the start
But from the very beginning,at conception,we are all sexless. We develop into the people we are today,by various means.
I’m not sure how much further I can explain the context of my comment"No further explanation is necessary. We are who we are.How we arrived at this point varies from individual to individual and the process may have started,been interrupted or changed at various different points. No particular journey has more or less validity than another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth.
The moment of birth seems like quite an arbitrary point to start from,it is just the moment of swapping a warm cosy environment for a harshly lit noisy one. There are more important defining moments in a persons development aren't there? Even the moment of conception has more influence on our final destiny than the moment of birth and quite a lot happens to us between just those two."Even so, everyone is born with either a penis or a vagina and that defines who we will be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?!" Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow " OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth.
The moment of birth seems like quite an arbitrary point to start from,it is just the moment of swapping a warm cosy environment for a harshly lit noisy one. There are more important defining moments in a persons development aren't there? Even the moment of conception has more influence on our final destiny than the moment of birth and quite a lot happens to us between just those two.
From birth was probably the wrong choice of words. I meant to imply from the beginning or from the start
But from the very beginning,at conception,we are all sexless. We develop into the people we are today,by various means.
I’m not sure how much further I can explain the context of my comment
No further explanation is necessary. We are who we are.How we arrived at this point varies from individual to individual and the process may have started,been interrupted or changed at various different points.
No particular journey has more or less validity than another."Ok, so, just done a quick google because I wasn’t sure of the time frame myself. At conception a baby’s sex is determined depending on whether the X or Y chromosome from the spent fuses with the X chromosomes. This point in time is what I meant when I said “from the start” But you was mostly right, the baby doesn’t develop the actual sex organs until a while later. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed! "We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow " Surely,anyone who feels driven to such an extreme measure should be helped out of their despair,if possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed! "I think people should try and help but I can only think through my head. Some people don’t want too help but maybe they have issues as well that they don’t accept, it’s complicated x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity? "We all pay for everyone. Including ourselves. It's called the NHS. And there but for the grace of God go you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth.
The moment of birth seems like quite an arbitrary point to start from,it is just the moment of swapping a warm cosy environment for a harshly lit noisy one. There are more important defining moments in a persons development aren't there? Even the moment of conception has more influence on our final destiny than the moment of birth and quite a lot happens to us between just those two.
From birth was probably the wrong choice of words. I meant to imply from the beginning or from the start
But from the very beginning,at conception,we are all sexless. We develop into the people we are today,by various means.
I’m not sure how much further I can explain the context of my comment
No further explanation is necessary. We are who we are.How we arrived at this point varies from individual to individual and the process may have started,been interrupted or changed at various different points.
No particular journey has more or less validity than another.
Ok, so, just done a quick google because I wasn’t sure of the time frame myself.
At conception a baby’s sex is determined depending on whether the X or Y chromosome from the spent fuses with the X chromosomes. This point in time is what I meant when I said “from the start”
But you was mostly right, the baby doesn’t develop the actual sex organs until a while later."Chromosomes are just so tricky to see though,aren't they? That makes that method quite a useless way of deciding who someone is. Did you ever get yours checked? I never did. There are much easier and more reliable ways of telling what sex someone is.However,these are not always 100% reliable. Something may be black or white in most cases,that doesn't make the few that are not so clear cut any less valid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity? ""The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too! No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to! Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead. And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point. For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to. This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow Surely,anyone who feels driven to such an extreme measure should be helped out of their despair,if possible." Surely someone who feels so desperate would fund said help themselves? My issue isn’t that these people shouldn’t get help, if that makes them feel better, it’s them expecting us to pay for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow Surely,anyone who feels driven to such an extreme measure should be helped out of their despair,if possible. Surely someone who feels so desperate would fund said help themselves? My issue isn’t that these people shouldn’t get help, if that makes them feel better, it’s them expecting us to pay for it. " What if they're unable to fund it? We as a society just let them die? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow Surely,anyone who feels driven to such an extreme measure should be helped out of their despair,if possible. Surely someone who feels so desperate would fund said help themselves? My issue isn’t that these people shouldn’t get help, if that makes them feel better, it’s them expecting us to pay for it. " Don’t think about what your paying for as a working man just hope that it’s hrlping people who we they are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow Surely,anyone who feels driven to such an extreme measure should be helped out of their despair,if possible. Surely someone who feels so desperate would fund said help themselves? My issue isn’t that these people shouldn’t get help, if that makes them feel better, it’s them expecting us to pay for it. " You seem to be arguing that the entire welfare state,including the NHS,should be dismantled. The whole point of all of it,is to help provide for those who can't provide for themselves. Not everyone is fabulously wealthy like us,those poor people aren't just left to rot,,,,,are they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh? "Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow Surely,anyone who feels driven to such an extreme measure should be helped out of their despair,if possible. Surely someone who feels so desperate would fund said help themselves? My issue isn’t that these people shouldn’t get help, if that makes them feel better, it’s them expecting us to pay for it. You seem to be arguing that the entire welfare state,including the NHS,should be dismantled. The whole point of all of it,is to help provide for those who can't provide for themselves. Not everyone is fabulously wealthy like us,those poor people aren't just left to rot,,,,,are they?" The vast majority of people are more than capable of providing for themselves but choose not to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh?
Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society "I'm so glad your way of thinking puts you in the minority! No one's mental health issues are their fault! Whether they stem from gender identity issues or not! Open your mind ffs! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh?
Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society "Interesting wording there. Your saying that someone who is transgender is to blame for being that way. That their choice is something they have control over. I have several friends that are transgender and the hell they go through to become the person they feel they are horrific. They go through bullying hatred and shit every day for being true to themselves and who they are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth.
The moment of birth seems like quite an arbitrary point to start from,it is just the moment of swapping a warm cosy environment for a harshly lit noisy one. There are more important defining moments in a persons development aren't there? Even the moment of conception has more influence on our final destiny than the moment of birth and quite a lot happens to us between just those two.
From birth was probably the wrong choice of words. I meant to imply from the beginning or from the start
But from the very beginning,at conception,we are all sexless. We develop into the people we are today,by various means.
I’m not sure how much further I can explain the context of my comment
No further explanation is necessary. We are who we are.How we arrived at this point varies from individual to individual and the process may have started,been interrupted or changed at various different points.
No particular journey has more or less validity than another.
Ok, so, just done a quick google because I wasn’t sure of the time frame myself.
At conception a baby’s sex is determined depending on whether the X or Y chromosome from the spent fuses with the X chromosomes. This point in time is what I meant when I said “from the start”
But you was mostly right, the baby doesn’t develop the actual sex organs until a while later.
Chromosomes are just so tricky to see though,aren't they? That makes that method quite a useless way of deciding who someone is. Did you ever get yours checked? I never did. There are much easier and more reliable ways of telling what sex someone is.However,these are not always 100% reliable.
Something may be black or white in most cases,that doesn't make the few that are not so clear cut any less valid."I’m by no means a scientist, but I was born with male externals and internals so I’ve got a very good idea of what my chromosomes are. As far as I am aware, everyone has male or female genetics. Just because in your mind you feel different, it doesn’t mean your genetics have changed. I am going to do more research when I’m not at work, but as far as my knowledge takes me, people identifying as something they are biological not, is all in their head. (I tried to word that as sensitive as I could, I’m not trying to cause any offence) Does a man who wants to be a woman or a woman who wants to be a man, undergo any natural changes on a genetic level? I’m rather curious now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow Surely,anyone who feels driven to such an extreme measure should be helped out of their despair,if possible. Surely someone who feels so desperate would fund said help themselves? My issue isn’t that these people shouldn’t get help, if that makes them feel better, it’s them expecting us to pay for it. You seem to be arguing that the entire welfare state,including the NHS,should be dismantled. The whole point of all of it,is to help provide for those who can't provide for themselves. Not everyone is fabulously wealthy like us,those poor people aren't just left to rot,,,,,are they? The vast majority of people are more than capable of providing for themselves but choose not to " That's simply utter bullshit! I know plenty of people who work their asses off 6/7 days a week to pay their bills and feed their families, they simply wouldn't be able to afford medical bills on top of that! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh?
Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society
I'm so glad your way of thinking puts you in the minority!
No one's mental health issues are their fault! Whether they stem from gender identity issues or not!
Open your mind ffs! "No ones mental health issues are their fault, just their responsibility to sort out. And as for the minority I don’t believe I am, I would imagine the majority are at or on their way home from work, which is just as well or there wouldn’t be many counciling sessions going on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh?
Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society
I'm so glad your way of thinking puts you in the minority!
No one's mental health issues are their fault! Whether they stem from gender identity issues or not!
Open your mind ffs!
No ones mental health issues are their fault, just their responsibility to sort out. And as for the minority I don’t believe I am, I would imagine the majority are at or on their way home from work, which is just as well or there wouldn’t be many counciling sessions going on "Yeah...cos everyone works 9 to 5 too don't they...I can't argue with stupid. I hope no one you love is forced to pay for medical treatment or go without, you might find you loose a lot of friends/family. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Men are far more of a threat to women than women are to men." . In turn, men are a far greater threat to trans women than trans women are to cis women. . It’s worth bearing in mind that trans women are something like five times more likely to be sexually assaulted than cis women. By refusing them access to women’s changing rooms, you’re forcing them into an environment where they are more likely to be sexually asssulted. . This is why ‘penis’ and ‘no penis’ differentiation doesn’t work. Some women have a penis. . I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but there are no force-fields on changing room doors. Rapists don’t need to fanny about pretending to self-identify as female to get access to a female changing room. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh?
Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society
I'm so glad your way of thinking puts you in the minority!
No one's mental health issues are their fault! Whether they stem from gender identity issues or not!
Open your mind ffs!
No ones mental health issues are their fault, just their responsibility to sort out. And as for the minority I don’t believe I am, I would imagine the majority are at or on their way home from work, which is just as well or there wouldn’t be many counciling sessions going on "The problem is that everybody isn’t capable of solving there own issues, that’s society. So you either help or you don’t that’s your choice. My choice is that I will help if possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh?
Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society
I'm so glad your way of thinking puts you in the minority!
No one's mental health issues are their fault! Whether they stem from gender identity issues or not!
Open your mind ffs!
No ones mental health issues are their fault, just their responsibility to sort out. And as for the minority I don’t believe I am, I would imagine the majority are at or on their way home from work, which is just as well or there wouldn’t be many counciling sessions going on
The problem is that everybody isn’t capable of solving there own issues, that’s society. So you either help or you don’t that’s your choice. My choice is that I will help if possible. " I think the vast majority would agree with you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh?
Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society "If you injured yourself at the gym, would you pay for your own medical care? If you went for a run and got hit by a bus, would that be self inflicted because it's a lifestyle choice? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh?
Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society
I'm so glad your way of thinking puts you in the minority!
No one's mental health issues are their fault! Whether they stem from gender identity issues or not!
Open your mind ffs!
No ones mental health issues are their fault, just their responsibility to sort out. And as for the minority I don’t believe I am, I would imagine the majority are at or on their way home from work, which is just as well or there wouldn’t be many counciling sessions going on
Yeah...cos everyone works 9 to 5 too don't they...I can't argue with stupid.
I hope no one you love is forced to pay for medical treatment or go without, you might find you loose a lot of friends/family."Stupid? Go check out the meaning of the word majority in a dictionary, if you can manage of course. No one is arguing about proper needed medical treatment, my point is that we shouldn’t as a society be paying for a hell of a lot of the things we do and that actually, if we wasn’t, it would help give treatment to those who actually deserve it and make the nhs a better and more efficient organisation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth.
The moment of birth seems like quite an arbitrary point to start from,it is just the moment of swapping a warm cosy environment for a harshly lit noisy one. There are more important defining moments in a persons development aren't there? Even the moment of conception has more influence on our final destiny than the moment of birth and quite a lot happens to us between just those two.
From birth was probably the wrong choice of words. I meant to imply from the beginning or from the start
But from the very beginning,at conception,we are all sexless. We develop into the people we are today,by various means.
I’m not sure how much further I can explain the context of my comment
No further explanation is necessary. We are who we are.How we arrived at this point varies from individual to individual and the process may have started,been interrupted or changed at various different points.
No particular journey has more or less validity than another.
Ok, so, just done a quick google because I wasn’t sure of the time frame myself.
At conception a baby’s sex is determined depending on whether the X or Y chromosome from the spent fuses with the X chromosomes. This point in time is what I meant when I said “from the start”
But you was mostly right, the baby doesn’t develop the actual sex organs until a while later.
Chromosomes are just so tricky to see though,aren't they? That makes that method quite a useless way of deciding who someone is. Did you ever get yours checked? I never did. There are much easier and more reliable ways of telling what sex someone is.However,these are not always 100% reliable.
Something may be black or white in most cases,that doesn't make the few that are not so clear cut any less valid.
I’m by no means a scientist, but I was born with male externals and internals so I’ve got a very good idea of what my chromosomes are.
As far as I am aware, everyone has male or female genetics. Just because in your mind you feel different, it doesn’t mean your genetics have changed.
I am going to do more research when I’m not at work, but as far as my knowledge takes me, people identifying as something they are biological not, is all in their head. (I tried to word that as sensitive as I could, I’m not trying to cause any offence)
Does a man who wants to be a woman or a woman who wants to be a man, undergo any natural changes on a genetic level?
I’m rather curious now "Lucky you to have been blessed with such happiness.You are as certain as you can be that your genes match your identity. Clearly,not everyone is so fortunate. As far as you are aware,everyone has male or female genetics.Clearly the reality is not so simple for everyone,there are obviously shades of grey. As for genetic changes,I have as much idea as you have. As I said,I never had a chromosome test (I'm not even sure such a thing is possible).I never found it necessary and, whatever the results were,it would change nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh?
Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society
I'm so glad your way of thinking puts you in the minority!
No one's mental health issues are their fault! Whether they stem from gender identity issues or not!
Open your mind ffs!
No ones mental health issues are their fault, just their responsibility to sort out. And as for the minority I don’t believe I am, I would imagine the majority are at or on their way home from work, which is just as well or there wouldn’t be many counciling sessions going on
The problem is that everybody isn’t capable of solving there own issues, that’s society. So you either help or you don’t that’s your choice. My choice is that I will help if possible.
I think the vast majority would agree with you "I wouldn’t be so sure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh?
Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society
If you injured yourself at the gym, would you pay for your own medical care? If you went for a run and got hit by a bus, would that be self inflicted because it's a lifestyle choice? "Re read the thread, no one is suggesting people shouldn’t be treated for getting run over by a bus! Just that that’s a very different scenario to wanting to get your cock chopped off at the taxpayers expense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh?
Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society
I'm so glad your way of thinking puts you in the minority!
No one's mental health issues are their fault! Whether they stem from gender identity issues or not!
Open your mind ffs!
No ones mental health issues are their fault, just their responsibility to sort out. And as for the minority I don’t believe I am, I would imagine the majority are at or on their way home from work, which is just as well or there wouldn’t be many counciling sessions going on
Yeah...cos everyone works 9 to 5 too don't they...I can't argue with stupid.
I hope no one you love is forced to pay for medical treatment or go without, you might find you loose a lot of friends/family.
Stupid? Go check out the meaning of the word majority in a dictionary, if you can manage of course. No one is arguing about proper needed medical treatment, my point is that we shouldn’t as a society be paying for a hell of a lot of the things we do and that actually, if we wasn’t, it would help give treatment to those who actually deserve it and make the nhs a better and more efficient organisation "Oh I understand your point...I simply think it's utterly stupid to think that someone doesn't deserve treatment because they're transgender. Or because they can't afford it. It's STUPID to assume that you know how someone else feels or what they need. In review...I think what you're saying is STUPID. I don't know you to comment on whether or not you are stupid...but I believe that what you're saying is both stupid and closed minded. That's my opinion on the matter | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe you are either male or female from birth.
The moment of birth seems like quite an arbitrary point to start from,it is just the moment of swapping a warm cosy environment for a harshly lit noisy one. There are more important defining moments in a persons development aren't there? Even the moment of conception has more influence on our final destiny than the moment of birth and quite a lot happens to us between just those two.
From birth was probably the wrong choice of words. I meant to imply from the beginning or from the start
But from the very beginning,at conception,we are all sexless. We develop into the people we are today,by various means.
I’m not sure how much further I can explain the context of my comment
No further explanation is necessary. We are who we are.How we arrived at this point varies from individual to individual and the process may have started,been interrupted or changed at various different points.
No particular journey has more or less validity than another.
Ok, so, just done a quick google because I wasn’t sure of the time frame myself.
At conception a baby’s sex is determined depending on whether the X or Y chromosome from the spent fuses with the X chromosomes. This point in time is what I meant when I said “from the start”
But you was mostly right, the baby doesn’t develop the actual sex organs until a while later.
Chromosomes are just so tricky to see though,aren't they? That makes that method quite a useless way of deciding who someone is. Did you ever get yours checked? I never did. There are much easier and more reliable ways of telling what sex someone is.However,these are not always 100% reliable.
Something may be black or white in most cases,that doesn't make the few that are not so clear cut any less valid.
I’m by no means a scientist, but I was born with male externals and internals so I’ve got a very good idea of what my chromosomes are.
As far as I am aware, everyone has male or female genetics. Just because in your mind you feel different, it doesn’t mean your genetics have changed.
I am going to do more research when I’m not at work, but as far as my knowledge takes me, people identifying as something they are biological not, is all in their head. (I tried to word that as sensitive as I could, I’m not trying to cause any offence)
Does a man who wants to be a woman or a woman who wants to be a man, undergo any natural changes on a genetic level?
I’m rather curious now
Lucky you to have been blessed with such happiness.You are as certain as you can be that your genes match your identity. Clearly,not everyone is so fortunate.
As far as you are aware,everyone has male or female genetics.Clearly the reality is not so simple for everyone,there are obviously shades of grey.
As for genetic changes,I have as much idea as you have. As I said,I never had a chromosome test (I'm not even sure such a thing is possible).I never found it necessary and, whatever the results were,it would change nothing."I am very certain my genes match my sex. What I’m wanting to know is, does everyone’s genes match their sex and is wanting to be different come from the mind? Or, does the urge to change sex come from your genes? Finding out that answer would probably change my mind about the whole thing to be honest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think if someone wants to call themselves a man or a woman and it makes them feel better then that’s a good thing. What I do object to is them doing it at taxpayers expense on the nhs, or worse still, changing their mind afterwards. If someone is born a man and has an operation of sorts and it makes them feel better then great, but they are a man who has had an operation, not a woman, and vice versa. Live and let live but expecting the public to pay for it is a bit ridiculous, surely if you want something enough you should be able to save and pay for it. That has potentially opened a whole new can of worms. I'm imagining all sorts of other threads with titles like 'Should certain operations be available on the NHS'? and 'What exactly should we call these operations? Sex change? SRS? GRS? GCS?' I may start some of them myself and look forward to arguing that anyone who smokes cigarettes should have to fund their own lung transplants,just as an example of 'lifestyle oriented medical needs'. I would agree with that point too, without going off topic the nhs is there to give people who can’t afford private health care life saving and health care, not lifestyle choices I think this lifestyle choice as you put it mate is also life saving in many cases. How so? Why should anyone have to suffer mentally? For most it is not a lifestyle choice but who they are! Many, many trans people have killed themselves because those surgeries aren't available to them or they've not been able to get the psychological help they've needed. Who are you or I to say that what someone feels about themselves is wrong?! Stopping someone from killing themselves isn’t life saving! Killing your self is a choice, not an affliction wow OK....I suffer from various mental health issues and have had more than one attempt at my own life when I've felt desperately hopeless and like I couldn't go on. Was it not entitled to any help? You know because I chose to be so desperately unhappy.... Wow indeed!
We all have issues I’m afraid, we don’t all expect everyone else to pay for getting help with them. Did u pay for your help or rely on the rest of us to do it? Out of curiousity?
"The rest of us"?! I pay my taxes thanks very much, my contributions are in the kitty too!
No I didn't pay for my mental healthcare, I wasn't in a position to be able to!
Without my medication I have no doubt I'd be dead.
And that, definitely isn't my fault, nor was it a choice to reach that point.
For the record...whilst recieving much of my medical support for my mental health issues I was also under treatment (also NHS I'm not ashamed to say) for breast cancer...so couldn't work to fund the other even if I'd wanted to.
This i guess as a smoker I should've been left to die from cancer too eh?
Sounds like the kitty you paid into wasn’t as big as the one needed to sort out all of your various ailments. I’m struggling to see why u wasn’t able to pay for these things, maybe u wasn’t well enough to, I’m sure that’s nothing to do with the smoking. I’m glad u r fit and well but relying on the nhs to sort out your various mental health issues, feeling like you should be a woman when you are quite clearly a man and self inflicted cancer problems is a piss take and not what the nhs was designed for. Meanwhile people with problems that are not their fault are being refused treatment due to budget cuts caused by the amount of piss takers we have in society
If you injured yourself at the gym, would you pay for your own medical care? If you went for a run and got hit by a bus, would that be self inflicted because it's a lifestyle choice?
Re read the thread, no one is suggesting people shouldn’t be treated for getting run over by a bus! Just that that’s a very different scenario to wanting to get your cock chopped off at the taxpayers expense "But you also say people with mental illness, 'self inflicted' cancer etc should be paid for by the patient. You also mention lifestyle choices and those people making those choices should be paying for their own medical care, your lifestyle choice is to go to the gym, if you get injured, by your own logic, you should pay for treatment yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
