nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Hungary Scrap Gender Studies Indoctrination Courses

DickSwiveller Returns

Great news coming out of Hungary. Victor Orban's government have stopped universities offering courses in Gender Studies. It's about time these courses were exposed for the unscientific propaganda vehicles they are.

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/orban-bans-gender-studies-courses-in-hungary-report-says-1.6365826

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Then you are naive. Of course, the vast, vast majority of men are not creepy sex offenders but those who are will go to great lengths to have access to vulnerable women. Why make it easier for them?There have already been cases of men claiming to be trans assaulting women in shelters and prisons and commiting acts of voyeurism in changing rooms and toilets.

I think those cases deserve further analysis. For example, the cases in Target in the US posted earlier in the thread showed that the move to vender neutral changing rooms was not the deciding factor in predatory behaviour. There were changin room incidents before they became gender neutral and at least one of the incidents after they became gender neutral was committed by a man who already had a record of doing this.

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think those cases deserve further analysis. For example, the cases in Target in the US posted earlier in the thread showed that the move to vender neutral changing rooms was not the deciding factor in predatory behaviour. There were changin room incidents before they became gender neutral and at least one of the incidents after they became gender neutral was committed by a man who already had a record of doing this.

If changing rooms etc are gender neutral or self id overrules biology then it is removing the option of women challenging a male who is making them uncomfortable in these places. Sure you yourself have already been insinuating that a woman is "discriminating" if she feels uneasy. Can't you see how this makes it easier for predators? It's telling women to shut up and ignore their instincts so as not to offend. So progressive

Brian?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If changing rooms etc are gender neutral or self id overrules biology then it is removing the option of women challenging a male who is making them uncomfortable in these places. Sure you yourself have already been insinuating that a woman is "discriminating" if she feels uneasy. Can't you see how this makes it easier for predators?

You want to dictate public policy based on sexual predators behaviour?

Better shut all the churches, lock up all the parents and segregate the kids from each other.

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If changing rooms etc are gender neutral or self id overrules biology then it is removing the option of women challenging a male who is making them uncomfortable in these places. Sure you yourself have already been insinuating that a woman is "discriminating" if she feels uneasy. Can't you see how this makes it easier for predators? It's telling women to shut up and ignore their instincts so as not to offend. So progressive

I have never said a woman is discriminating if she feels uneasy.

Brian?

Bootlegger wrote: »

So why don't real women get a say in any of this? Why must they be forced acconadate men in their spaces?

Are you saying trans women are fake women?

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I have never said a woman is discriminating if she feels uneasy.

But you compared it to not wanting to shower around a lesbian didn't you? In reality it's nothing like that. If it is then might as well do away with sex segregated spaces altogether.

Malayalam

LLMMLL wrote: »

I have never said a woman is discriminating if she feels uneasy.

Correct, you didn't. You said ''uncomfortable''.

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think those cases deserve further analysis. For example, the cases in Target in the US posted earlier in the thread showed that the move to vender neutral changing rooms was not the deciding factor in predatory behaviour. There were changin room incidents before they became gender neutral and at least one of the incidents after they became gender neutral was committed by a man who already had a record of doing this.

Also on this, what about the prison and womens shelter incidents? They are direct result of this policy (self id) and had previously never happened . Are those women and any future victims just collateral damage for the greater good?

Brian?

cdeb wrote: »

Men who identify as women are clearly fake women.

It’s anything but “clear”.

Are you saying all trans women are fake women? Even post surgery?

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

But you compared it to not wanting to shower around a lesbian didn't you? In reality it's nothing like that. If it is then might as well do away with sex segregated spaces altogether.

So you think not wanting to shower around a lesbian is prejudice or discrimination?

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Also on this, what about the prison and womens shelter incidents? They are direct result of this policy (self id) and had previously never happened . Are those women and any future victims just collateral damage for the greater good?

I don’t recognise the concept of collateral damage. It’s fairly inhumane. Do you consider the trans women raped in Male prisons collateral damage?

[Deleted User]

Brian? wrote: »

It’s anything but “clear”.

Only because there's a push to muddy the waters..

Since time began it was quite clear..
If you have a uterus you're a woman..

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Only because there's a push to muddy the waters..

Since time began it was quite clear..
If you have a uterus you're a woman..

Not sure they knew what a uterus was at the beginning of time......

[Deleted User]

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don’t recognise the concept of collateral damage.

It's all just an Intellectualization with you isn't it?..People are wasting their time arguing with you..You're just pushing an agenda..

LLMMLL

Malayalam wrote: »

Correct, you didn't. You said ''uncomfortable''.

Didn’t say you were discriminating if you felt uncomfortable either.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's all just an Intellectualization with you isn't it?..People are wasting their time arguing with you..You're just pushing an agenda..

No more than you are. If you don’t like debating them don’t debate. There’s plenty of simpleton AH threads

Sardonicat

Bootlegger wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

Are you saying trans women are fake women?

Yes. There are two genders, male and female. You are born one or the other and you can no more change your gender than change your race.

You can undergo surgery and take on crude appearance of the opposite gender but you are still what you were born.

No amount of new age feminism will change that.

You are aware that people can be born with the sexual organs of both genders, aren't you? There are a number of conditions which result in this. Sometimes it's apparent at birth and sometimes it isn't discovered til puberty or even later. And it's not as rare as you think.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

All you’ve done here is prove my point. A societies definition of what constitutes nudity is entirely subjective and not inate.

I didn't prove your point. You said among such societies "Nudity is not taboo". This is completely incorrect. The line where nudity is perceived is culturally based and I never claimed otherwise, indeed my last post points this out, but the idea of nudity itself is innate and present in near every society save for among Western nudist groups.

Brian? wrote: »

I’ve read many times about how liberal pre Christian societies were in Ireland. Women played a much bigger role in society, homosexuality was accepted and nudity wasn’t as much of a taboo.

More pre "civilised" utopian nonsense. As usual its far more complex than that. Pre Christian societies were anything but liberal by our terms. That they seemed to be OK at times with homosexuality among men(which itself is hard to pin down) and high born women had some rights doesn't really cut it.

The same can be said for pre Christian Italy and Greece.

You must be having a laugh now. With the exception of Sparta at times, where women had more autonomy, the Greek city states made the most right wing modern state look like a US social studies class. Women were not seen and not heard. A walk through the streets of Athens would make you think it a male only culture(with slaves). Women were essentially cloistered for the majority of their lives. Whores actually had more freedom. They were OK with some contextual male nudity, but female nudity not nearly so much(though breasts could be out and about). Homosexuality was based on male pederasty and dominance. Rome while not quite as anti women, was just as complex. Both societies were incredibly patriarchal. If anything homosexuality reinforced this set up. The streets of San Fran it was not. Nudity? Public nudity outside of very specific contexts was seen as shameful in both societies. One reason the Celts freaked out the Romans was the fact they often went into battle in the nip(not quite there either as they usually wore body paint). The Romans were even more dubious of public nudity and it was seen as demeaning or downright immoral.

Compare this with non Abrhamic societies in the Far East and the America’s. These societies were far more accepting of homosexuality in particular and placed no real judgement on nudity.

Again with this notion of nudity.

Brian? wrote: »

Are you saying trans women are fake women?

Personal opinion? I would believe there are three genders. Male, female and intersex. Trans individuals fall into the latter group. Common civility and humanity would have me regard and adresss an individual by their believed and identifying gender, but they're not actually women, or men for that matter in the case of F to M Trans people. I would not regard them as "fake", as such individuals suffer from genetic/congenital/hormonal conditions that "make" them this way through zero fault of their own. And they need help and support for that. However statements like "a woman's penis" or "a man's vagina" are clearly scientifically provable nonsense. That this is even up for rational debate is staggering. Never mind that someone can in some circles be circumscribed for stating such actual facts.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

However statements like "a woman's penis" or "a man's vagina" are clearly scientifically provable nonsense. That this is even up for rational debate is staggering. Never mind that someone can in some circles be circumscribed for stating such actual facts.

Can you say “a mans breasts”?

[Deleted User]

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you say “a mans breasts”?

Moobs, they're called..

cdeb

Brian? wrote: »

It’s anything but “clear”.

Are you saying all trans women are fake women? Even post surgery?

Ah no, it's quite clear.

Let's split it into pre- and post-op if you want. Is a pre-op trans male a female? No. What a daft question. This literally goes against the very definitions of male and female. The problem here is that if you're going to propose such an extraordinary point of view as to redefine two of the very fundamental definitions of humanity, you must have extraordinary evidence. But LLMMLL has dismissed this, saying that it's not extraordinary to redefine such fundamental terms. This then goes against your own desire to have some manner of discussion around the point.

I do think a male can identify as a female if they want. They're wrong - but let them at it. The same way that you can identify as someone who thinks that homeopathy is a thing - it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. And in both case, no formal recognition or societal reaction or acceptance is required. You're not a female for things like sporting events and changing rooms. Because you're wrong.

Is a post-op male a female? No. The best I can grant is that it's slightly less clear, but the operation is crude at best and really just verbiage to call a post-op male a female.

Sardonicat

Jaysus Wibbs, I just spit out my tea. I thought you'd typed "circumcised for stating such actual facts "!

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

So you think not wanting to shower around a lesbian is prejudice or discrimination?

That's irrelevant. A woman feeling uncomfortable showering or being naked around an unknown male in possession of a penis is not the same thing and is not bigotry.

Wibbs

Sardonicat wrote: »

You are aware that people can be born with the sexual organs of both genders, aren't you? There are a number of conditions which result in this. Sometimes it's apparent at birth and sometimes it isn't discovered til puberty or even later. And it's not as rare as you think.

Actually not so. True human hermaphrodites are vanishingly rare. IE what you describe, possessing the sexual organs of both genders. For obvious physiological reasons. The sexual organs of both sexes are analogous to each other. They're not separate things, where someone has both. EG the penis and the clitoris, the testes and the ovaries. Intersex covers a range of conditions alright. Usually presenting at least physically with external sexual organs that are not quite one or the other. EG a girl born with an unusually large clitoris, or a boy born with an unusually small penis. There are other genetic faults and conditions that fall under the intersex banner. In some an individual may not even know they have any condition until say puberty doesn't go normally, or a woman tries for children only to find out she's intersex and infertile. The majority of Trans folks are not classically or clinically intersex. They present physically and chromosomally as the gender they're described at birth.

cdeb

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you say “a mans breasts”?

You are aware breasts are different to genitalia?

In fact, men's nipples are evolutionarily related to women's breasts. In some instances, men can even lactate.

So this is so utterly different to the question of genitalia that it adds nothing to the point you're trying to make.

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you say “a mans breasts”?

Yes because males do have breast tissue hence they can get breast cancer, same as females. Also some males develop breasts due to a medical condition. No male ever has had a vagina or a uterus. Does this really need pointing out?

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

That's irrelevant. A woman feeling uncomfortable showering or being naked around an unknown male in possession of a penis is not the same thing and is not bigotry.

Should a woman feeling uncomfortable showering or being naked around a lesbian be accommodated in some way?

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you say “a mans breasts”?

Silly comparison. You can also say a woman/man's shoulders, legs, feet. The vagina is a structure only found in healthy normal women. The penis is a structure only found in healthy normal men. A person that has a penis and external gonads and XY chromosomes is a man, not a woman.

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes because males do have breast tissue hence they can get breast cancer, same as females. Also some males develop breasts due to a medical condition. No male ever has had a vagina or a uterus. Does this really need pointing out?

A man can have breasts? Omg please stop pushing your liberal agenda on us.

Sardonicat

Yeah, I know usually it presents more ambigiously than I described in my post. I was responding to the poster who stated that there are only two genders. I know trans is not the same as Intersex.