Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

The logical extension of their opinions is no common changing rooms for anyone as, theoretically, a gay man could assault another man. Never mind if it actually happens or not, the mere possibility of it should lead to legal enshrinement.

Of course they know it's ridiculous as times have changed and no sane person thinks that gay men would be likely of assaulting anyone in changing rooms.

They rely on the fact that most people don't have enough experience of trans people to Peddle their fearmongering.

The problem with self identification is that the logic could easily removed all protections from female only spaces, for instance in changing rooms, precisely because people cant be expected to show their passports on entering a changing room.

And as I pointed out before, the risk is in fact much higher in unisex changing rooms.

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

There's no need to misinterpret what I said. I think you're well aware that I actually said trans females were always female. Not that a trans female is actually a male and.cant become female.

This statement is interesting because it denies both biology and social conditioning/social construction.

Trans women are women because of some magical essence which can't be measured ( if it could be measured there would be a measuring device and we wouldn't need self identification).

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

FVP3 wrote: »

The problem with self identification is that the logic could easily removed all protections from female only spaces, for instance in changing rooms, precisely because people cant be expected to show their passports on entering a changing room.

And as I pointed out before, the risk is much higher in unisex changing rooms.

And the risk is much higher male —> female. Which is something that is always ignored with the fallacious statements like “Oh so should gay men be banned from being around straight men in changing rooms?” and “Should lesbians not be around straight women?”.

Men are much likely to be violent than women and men are generally much stronger than women. Not always but typically. That male strength is barely dented by transition and if somebody self IDs, it’s completely unchanged. So we’re just supposed to ignore that strength differential in favour of magical thinking?

Gentlemanne

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I'm a man, I've got nothing to lose in this debate. So trans-peoples 'existing' is of no inconvenience to me at all.

Extremely transparent position here. It doesnt affect me so I don't care or understand!

a Steven Crowder username is so strange to me. Why associate yourself with someone so awful?

FVP3

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

like 'define to me a table'

Something not difficult at all for most people, outside of the hardest degree on earth, where tables are just impossible to define.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

'The logical extension of allowing gay marriage is that next people will be allowed to marry their sisters, cats and dogs'.

You wouldn't be allowing that now would you. Check out the slippery slope fallacy there. For someone who fancies themselves as some sort of philosophical genius, a graduate of 'Ireland's toughest course', I thought you would've known about it.

That's a made up slippery slope. It is ridiculous to claim that the logical extension of gay marriage is people marrying their dog unless you can provide reasoning as to why that is the extension.

In the case of banning gay men from male changing rooms the reasoning is clear:

IF one is concerned that men are more likely (because of their pattern of criminality according to ODB) to commit sexual assaults in changing rooms and IF one's often stated position is that the chance of assault in changing rooms is enough to ban a class of people then it is absolutely not a slippery slope to say that the logical conclusion is that gay men should be banned from changing with straight men.

Now we all know that banning gay men from changing rooms is absurd because the insane prejudice against gay men is a lot less than it used to be.

But there is no slippery slope. So I'm afraid your philosophical qaundary has not stumped me.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

The problem with self identification is that the logic could easily removed all protections from female only spaces, for instance in changing rooms, precisely because people cant be expected to show their passports on entering a changing room.

And as I pointed out before, the risk is in fact much higher in unisex changing rooms.

That has nothing to do with trans people. Those are cis males committing those crimes.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

Something not difficult at all for most people, outside of the hardest degree on earth, where tables are just impossible to define.

Yet nobody has managed to define it. Of course if it's not difficult at all I expect your next post will provide that definiton.

In reality I know fully well you'll ignore this post.

Gentlemanne

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

male strength is barely dented by transition

I've seen you say this a lot. It's not true, trans women on hormones will reduce their strength a lot. There is a lot of evidence for this.

"male" strength is another leading word here. Honestly it's like talking to a child, they dont understand or refuse to accept that trans women are women.

The Floyd p

Gentlemanne wrote: »

I've seen you say this a lot. It's not true, trans women on hormones will reduce their strength a lot. There is a lot of evidence for this.

"male" strength is another leading word here. Honestly it's like talking to a child, they dont understand or refuse to accept that trans women are women.

This user (ODB) isn't interested in discussing facts, just throwing around baseless claims.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And the risk is much higher male —> female. Which is something that is always ignored with the fallacious statements like “Oh so should gay men be banned from being around straight men in changing rooms?” and “Should lesbians not be around straight women?”.

Men are much likely to be violent than women and men are generally much stronger than women. Not always but typically. That male strength is barely dented by transition and if somebody self IDs, it’s completely unchanged. So we’re just supposed to ignore that strength differential in favour of magical thinking?

We ignore that strength differential all the time. If the "male pattern of criminality" and "male strength" are the main reasons for keeping men and women apart then why stop at changing rooms? Shouldn't men and women be kept separate where rapes are most.likely to occur? Because that's definitely not in changing rooms.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

This statement is interesting because it denies both biology and social conditioning/social construction.

Trans women are women because of some magical essence which can't be measured ( if it could be measured there would be a measuring device and we wouldn't need self identification).

How do you measure if someone is black? How do you measure if someone is gay? Is that also magical thinking?

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yet nobody has managed to define it. Of course if it's not difficult at all I expect your next post will provide that definiton.

In reality I know fully well you'll ignore this post.

No I wont.

The dictionary definition is

a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at.


I would perhaps say:

a piece of furniture with a flat top generally on one or more legs, providing a level surface and designed for for eating, writing, or working at.

As for cases where a tree stump might work as a table for children and a chair for an adult that a tree trump, given the lack of design.

Now back to the essence that makes transwomen real women at birth, where does that come from and how can we measure it?

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

How do you measure if someone is black? How do you measure if someone is gay? Is that also magical thinking?

Well blackness is clearly measurable as melanin.

Gayness isn't biological, and sexuality can be fluid.

Why are you asking questions and not answering them?

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

No I wont.

The dictionary definition is

a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at.


I would perhaps say:

a piece of furniture with a flat top generally on one or more legs, providing a level surface and designed for for eating, writing, or working at.

As for cases where a tree stump might work as a table for children and a chair for an adult that a tree trump, given the lack of design.

Now back to the essence that makes transwomen real women at birth, where does that come from and how can we measure it?

So according to your definition a table must have legs. Google "table without legs". There are.many images. Are none of those tables?

You've also defined a table as something "designed for" various things and then used a tree stump as an example. However, a tree stump is not designed for anything. It's simply the after effects of a tree falling or being cut down.

So your definition is about as fuzzy as it gets.

Why are you asking me to measure something I never said was measurable?

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

We ignore that strength differential all the time. If the "male pattern of criminality" and "male strength" are the main reasons for keeping men and women apart then why stop at changing rooms? Shouldn't men and women be kept separate where rapes are most.likely to occur? Because that's definitely not in changing rooms.

Well as usual you dont elaborate where its likely to occur, leaving us all to guess. Is it the home? It is the workspace? A movie? We cant really answer your question unless we know what you mean.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

Well blackness is clearly measurable as melanin.

Gayness isn't biological, and sexuality can be fluid.

Why are you asking questions and not answering them?

Gayness isn't biological? How do you know this? Do you think it's because of a distant father and an overbearing mother or something? Hello 1950.

What is the cutoff of melanin measurement at which a person is no longer black? Please provide.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gentlemanne wrote: »

I've seen you say this a lot. It's not true, trans women on hormones will reduce their strength a lot. There is a lot of evidence for this.

"male" strength is another leading word here. Honestly it's like talking to a child, they dont understand or refuse to accept that trans women are women.

The Floyd p wrote: »

This user (ODB) isn't interested in discussing facts, just throwing around baseless claims.

‘Male’ is a leading word? Would you listen to yourself. A transgender woman is inescapably male. That’s can’t be changed. And if you think it can - yikes.

Most of the benefits of male puberty remain. Bone strength differences, bigger hands, bigger lungs. Hormones are a tiny part of it.

An interesting paper (by biologists) entitled “Transgender Women in The Female Category of Sport: Is the Male Performance Advantage Removed by Testosterone Suppression?” did a review of the literature and deemed the loss of strength in transitioned transgender to women to be minimal. And remember, in self ID transgender women, the loss of strength is 0%.

You’re very welcome to supply your own peer-reviewed studies. Any of you? Gentlemanne? Stark? The Floyd p? Joey? Bueller?

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

Well as usual you dont elaborate where its likely to occur, leaving us all to guess. Is it the home? It is the workspace? A movie? We cant really answer your question unless we know what you mean.

Rape is most common in the victims home.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

‘Male’ is a leading word? Would you listen to yourself. A transgender woman is inescapably male. That’s can’t be changed. And if you think it can - yikes.

Most of the benefits of male puberty remain. Bone strength differences, bigger hands, bigger lungs. Hormones are a tiny part of it.

An interesting paper entitled “Transgender Women in The Female Category of Sport: Is the Male Performance Advantage Removed by Testosterone Suppression?” did a review of the literature and deemed the loss of strength in transitioned transgender to women to be minimal. And remember, in self ID transgender women, the loss of strength is 0%.

Would you be OK with someone who doesn't go through male puberty being in a female changing room?

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

So according to your definition a table must have legs. Google "table without legs". There are.many images. Are none of those tables?

I put generally in there in my definition. It was the dictionary definition that said a table would have legs..

You've also defined a table as something "designed for" various things and then used a tree stump as an example. However, a tree stump is not designed for anything. It's simply the after effects of a tree falling or being cut down.

I said the tree stump was a tree stump not a table or a chair precisely given the lack of design. And I added design to the dictionary definition.

Why are you asking me to measure something I never said was measurable?

Because if someone says a dog is a cat I would expect the cat essence of the dog to be verifiable in some scientific way. Same with the femalesness of a biological male.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

I put generally in there in my definition. It was the dictionary definition that said a table would have legs..



I said the tree stump was a tree stump not a table or a chair precisely given the lack of design. And I added design to the dictionary definition.



Because if someone says a dog is a cat I would expect the cat essence of the dog to be verifiable in some scientific way. Same with the femalesness of a biological male.

Generally doesn't actually provide an exclusive definiton.

Would you be happy if the definition that You use for woman or female had the word "generally" inserted into it? Would it still exclusively define what a woman is in your opinion? Because that definiton would actually allow.for trans women to be included.

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

Rape is most common in the victims home.

Yes, so since we cant stop people of opposite sexes marrying or living together, and probably can't stop homes forming, we can't really separate the sexes in homes. Although we can do our best to increase funding to crisis centres and refuges where hopefully biological women get safe same sex spaces.

( Of course since you are a stickler for words, I know that not all assaults are male-female in the home, but most are).

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

Generally doesn't actually provide an exclusive definiton.

you seem to be a stickler for the legs part. Lets kick it out.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

Yes, so since we cant stop people of opposite sexes marrying or living together, and probably can't stop homes forming, we can't really separate the sexes in homes. Although we can do our best to increase funding to crisis centres and refuges where hopefully biological women get safe same sex spaces.

( Of course since you are a stickler for words, I know that not all assaults are male-female in the home, but most are).

So we can prevent some people (trans people) from doing things to minimise assaults (even though it's extremely unlikely that they will assault anyone) but we can't interfere in other people's lives?

There were 36,500 workplace assaults in the US over 7 years. Can we segregated sexes there? We've seen how working from home is actually very realistic for many people. Should we encourage all people to work from home to minimise that number of assaults or do you think that's a bit silly?

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

you seem to be a stickler for the legs part. Lets kick it out.

Ok so a table.doesnt have to have legs. Does it have to be a flat surface? Say a piece of furniture had 4 legs and was the same size as your kitchen table, but had an interesting design that wasn't actually flat. Would it no longer be a table?

Quantum Erasure

LLMMLL wrote: »

That has nothing to do with trans people. Those are cis males committing those crimes.

define a cis male?

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Nonsense. This is just the usual playing of the man and not the ball that we always get in these threads.

I know you’re obviously serious, but using my post as an example when there were many clear examples to choose from? The post attacked no man, but their ideas, the idea of the existence of people who are transgender being such an inconvenience to some people. It most certainly appears so, or what would there be at all that requires such fierce ‘debate’?

This thread reminds me of that old joke - I was expecting a mud slinging contest, and a debate broke out :pac:

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Posters in here can't even define to us what a woman is, you then get hit with outlandish bollox like 'define to me a table' when you ask, before the usual posters throw their toys out of the pram labelling you 'anti-trans', 'transphobic', claiming you want people not to exist all because you raise legitimate concerns.

I’ve given you my definition of a woman already, countless times now, and yet you still insist that I haven’t? Characteristics and traits commonly associated with either the female or the male sex of the species. There’s your definition you’re looking for while demonstrating that there is a distinction between the sexes.

You claim ‘the usual posters’ but I have never once used those terms to refer to anyone, so I cannot be included in that group you have identified as having done so. I also would not include anyone here in any group under the heading of ‘legitimate concerns’, because there have been no legitimate concerns presented by anyone thus far. Any ‘concerns’ regarding the gender recognition act have been based upon requiring recognition of beliefs founded upon nothing more than suspicion, paranoia, prejudice and ignorance. In essence - legitimising discrimination, the very thing the gender recognition act exists to prevent.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I'm a man, I've got nothing to lose in this debate. So trans-peoples 'existing' is of no inconvenience to me at all.

Nobody has anything to lose, but people have everything to gain from the passage of the gender recognition act. It may mean nothing to you, but it means that people who are transgender are recognised in Irish law and protected from discrimination on the basis of their transgender status. It’s not a debate as the law already exists and wasn’t as some posters have suggested “snuck in through the back door”, but rather it has been an obligation which Ireland promised to fulfill when we signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights in 2003.

On 11th July anyone who isn’t aware of the history of the act being brought into Irish law can watch the YouTube broadcast celebrating five years of it’s existence in Ireland featuring the person who was behind forcing the Irish Government to fulfill their Human Rights obligations -


Broadcast to mark five years of Ireland's gender recognition legislation to feature Athy's Dr Lydia Foy


Perhaps then one who doesn’t understand already, might understand it’s significance to Irish society, and not just it’s significance to the tiny minority of people who have been able to avail of it to be recognised in Irish law as their preferred gender and thereby be protected from discrimination and “legitimate concerns” masquerading as “debate”. I’ve said it before but it applies equally under these circumstances - people aren’t nearly so stupid as you need them to be in order to believe your paranoia fuelled prejudice. They’re much more used to living and working with people who are transgender every day in Irish society, because people who are transgender don’t have to hide in the shadows of some dingy bar on Baggot St. any more as they did in the 1970’s -


Life was a drag in 1970s Dublin: Before Panti, there was Mr. Pussy.


‘Twas the Irish version of the Black Cat Bar or the more infamous Stonewall, before the celebrity hangout that was Cafe De Luxe on Suffolk Street -


'Naomi Campbell handed me her knickers'


(Place was always full of people who were all fur coat and no knickers, quite literally in some cases :pac: )

Quantum Erasure

LLMMLL wrote:

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

LLMMLL wrote: »

My conceptualization of women includes transwomen and cis women. But an exclusive definiton is impossible.

So, what are some differences between those sub groups?

I prefer to unify rather than divide

would a cis male fit under this umbrella term of 'woman'?

why / why not?

CtevenSrowder

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Extremely transparent position here. It doesnt affect me so I don't care or understand!

a Steven Crowder username is so strange to me. Why associate yourself with someone so awful?

Eh, I do care. I think you've missed my point. My username is totally irrelevant and has no bearing on my political positions.