Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

GN Toilets

1235711

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,731 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Eh, they are completely different words. Read your own posts! Cis on its own to me is asinine and I think cisgender is a fairly dumb word, but many neologisms tend to be.

    Cisgender - like hetrosexual - is a real word with latin origins, not just made up by some over rights-conscious group.

    Trans - to cross over to the other side,
    Cis - to stay on the same side.


    Hardly "dumb"

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,872 ✭✭✭Sittingpretty


    Cisgender - like hetrosexual - is a real word with latin origins, not just made up by some over rights-conscious group.

    Trans - to cross over to the other side,
    Cis - to stay on the same side.


    Hardly "dumb"

    Not dumb, just unnecessary.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Because cisgender doesn’t mean “you really are the gender you present as”; it means your gender identity corresponds to your sex at birth (there are different views about sex too ofc, but I don’t know enough about the arguments there to talk about them).

    Transgender means your gender identity doesn’t correspond with your sex at birth.

    Or you could just say: Transgendered and non-transgendered. No need for cis.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    Why would it make you uncomfortable? You could be using the same toilet as transwomen and not recognize them as transwomen. Is it just the ones immediately recognizable as transwomen who shouldn’t use the ladies, since your rationale is that they shouldn’t “make women feel uncomfortable”?

    And if a ciswoman might be mistaken for a man, should she also use the disabled toilets, since presumably she makes you feel uncomfortable too?


    I mean - don't be sh*tty. Don't be a sh*t person.
    Don't try to academise it. Don't look for loopholes. Find another outlet to express your gender identity.

    Men and men-who-think-theyre-women and men with gender dysphoria and any other variant of individuals who are at risk of catching their penis in their zipper through a momentary lapse in concentration .. Keep out of women's toilets. They're not for you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    Cis was a word co-opted from molecular biology.

    Saying woman needs cis to distinguish it from trans is like saying blue needs to be called cis blue in order for people to understand it. It is an attempt to qualify a noun which is indivisible into categories. Descriptors are different, such as adjectives used to describe, eg light blue, etc. But cis and trans dont seek to be adjectives, these words do not seek to describe a single category or noun, they attempt to divide it. The fundamental ideology is that transwomen are women. Just a fundamental division of that category. They are not. They are transwomen. Women is an indivisible category. A sex.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    If you are unsure of what gender you are, maybe you shouldnt be let outside the front door incase you get offended, let alone use the public toilets.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,531 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    If you are unsure of what gender you are, maybe you shouldnt be let outside the front door incase you get offended, let alone use the public toilets.

    I still don’t know how anyone can be unsure of their gender. You only have to look down your jocks/knickers.

    What goes on in those peoples heads is a whole different thing.

    I’m absolutely shocked at the amount of people in this thread that think all of this is ok. It’s utter insanity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    Gynoid wrote: »
    Saying woman needs cis to distinguish it from trans is like saying blue needs to be called cis blue in order for people to understand it.

    I was thinking for the same analogy. Or cisdog, so people know you're talking about a dog.. And not a cat.

    Bad enough they coopted the word "gender" to begin with. Apart from grammatical gender, gender was used (maybe euphemistically) to mean sex before being hijacked by the p.c brigade to mean "gender identity" - their argument being their usage is closer to the grammatical usage. No it's not.. The legitimate usage to describe the condition is as part of the term "gender dysphoria"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Or you could just say: Transgendered and non-transgendered. No need for cis.

    Well cis- was already the opposite of trans-, used in examples like Cisalpine Gaul (a term which predates molecular biology by a bit...)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Well cis- was already the opposite of trans-, used in examples like Cisalpine Gaul (a term which predates molecular biology by a bit...)

    But we don't need an opposite. All we need to do is to distinguish. Trans and non-trans does this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    I still don’t know how anyone can be unsure of their gender. You only have to look down your jocks/knickers.

    What goes on in those peoples heads is a whole different thing.

    I’m absolutely shocked at the amount of people in this thread that think all of this is ok. It’s utter insanity.

    Because gender has come to mean something distinct from sex. It’s how we talk about practices like dressing a baby blue or pink, wearing dresses or trousers, etc. Regardless of how you feel about transgender issues, does anyone actually dispute that there are gendered social and cultural phenomena that have no essential link with what people have between their legs?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    Because gender has come to mean something distinct from sex.

    Has it though - outside gender-studies and the "queer community"?

    There is no real-world application of the prefix cis.
    "He's a man." . Oh do you mean he's a cisman or is he genderqueer or trans.... Went no discussion ever.

    And even if we did cede to "cis" being a thing, we'd still have the nutjobs telling us that some trans ppl are in fact cis, because trans is an identity that must be assumed. And in the same way a trans person can identify as cis. So most people are actually cis-cis-gender. As opposed to trans-cis-gender or trans-gender. Of course, this excludes cisciscisgender and its derivatives.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,731 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Not dumb, just unnecessary.
    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Or you could just say: Transgendered and non-transgendered. No need for cis.

    That's like saying "hetrosexual" and "not heterosexual" - we don't need the word "homosexual"

    Or "tall" and "not tall" - we don't need a word for small.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    That's like saying "hetrosexual" and "not heterosexual" - we don't need the word "homosexual"

    Wrong! Because bisexual, asexual.

    As for tall, small... They're opposites. Im sure you can also be cis-height (oh wait!)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,731 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    antix80 wrote: »
    Has it though - outside gender-studies and the "queer community"?

    There is no real-world application of the prefix cis.
    "He's a man." . Oh do you mean he's a cisman or is he genderqueer or trans.... Went no discussion ever.

    And even if we did cede to "cis" being a thing, we'd still have the nutjobs telling us that some trans ppl are in fact cis, because trans is an identity that must be assumed. And in the same way a trans person can identify as cis. So most people are actually cis-cis-gender. As opposed to trans-cis-gender or trans-gender. Of course, this excludes cisciscisgender and its derivatives.

    Well this depends - do you distinguish between "male" and "female"? Or maybe it;s just malemale and malefemale?

    Do we even need the word "female"? Why not just say "not a man"?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,531 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    Because gender has come to mean something distinct from sex. It’s how we talk about practices like dressing a baby blue or pink, wearing dresses or trousers, etc. Regardless of how you feel about transgender issues, does anyone actually dispute that there are gendered social and cultural phenomena that have no essential link with what people have between their legs?

    Has it now? And why’s it so different in 2019? Honestly who cares that girls are dressed in pink and boys blue. There’s a distinct difference between men and women. Stop trying to say their isn’t.


  • Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭SoupMonster


    Because gender has come to mean something distinct from sex. It’s how we talk about practices like dressing a baby blue or pink, wearing dresses or trousers, etc. Regardless of how you feel about transgender issues, does anyone actually dispute that there are gendered social and cultural phenomena that have no essential link with what people have between their legs?

    Gender doesn't mean sex, it means adhering to sexist/sexy stereotypes that are used to signal sex.
    Is that your personal understanding of 'gender'?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,731 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    antix80 wrote: »
    Wrong! Because bisexual, asexual.

    As for tall, small... They're opposites. Im sure you can also be cis-height (oh wait!)

    ... nonbinary, genderqueer, genderfluid...., your point being?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,531 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    ... nonbinary, genderqueer, genderfluid...., your point being?

    Look, more things that don’t exist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,531 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    You forgot the other 90 odd genders too.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,731 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Look, more things that don’t exist.

    Neither do asexual, pansexual and so on, by the same logic.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Ok, great. Can provide reasons why?

    I didn’t know we had to explain ourselves. I see people saying “ I feel like a woman therefore I am a woman. End of story.”.
    And that’s to be accepted without question or the questioner is labeled as transphobic.
    So, I’m insulted by being referred to as a cis woman because I’m a woman end of story. I assume when the hate speech laws come in I will be able to complain to the Gardai if someone describes me as a cis woman, and action will be taken.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,017 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    It’s a useful term in discussions about transgenderism, because otherwise we’d be distinguishing between women and transwomen all the time, which is not inclusive language.
    The reason to use cis- is to avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as.

    They're not - I'm sorry, but all the sensitivity in the world won't change that there are real differences between biological men/women and trans men/women and while these have no bearing in most everyday cases, there are some where it's important.

    That's not to say that there's anything wrong with being trans - there isn't - but attempting to muddy the waters through language gymnastics and "feelings" doesn't change the facts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    ... nonbinary, genderqueer, genderfluid...., your point being?

    All made up stuff like Star Wars and Harry Potter.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,731 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    splinter65 wrote: »
    All made up stuff like Star Wars and Harry Potter.

    You've never seen anyone use elements of the alternative gender...? Ever?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    The irony is that gender has come to mean some incontrovertible fact, such as a girl playing with trucks or a boy who wears dresses really IS the opposite gender, whereas biological sex is merely a state assigned at birth that is an uncertain reality. Gender identity which any arse knows is fluid in its expression is more real now. Thus give that child hormones to stop the menarche or spermarche and make them sterile and impotent. Savagery.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,531 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    Neither do asexual, pansexual and so on, by the same logic.

    I’m glad you agree with me.

    All those things you mention fall under two words, “gender dysphoria”.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,731 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    I’m glad you agree with me.

    All those things you mention fall under two words, “gender dysphoria”.

    What do you understand by the phrase "gender dysphoria"? Regardless of how real you believe it is or isn't?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    I’m glad you agree with me.

    All those things you mention fall under two words, “gender dysphoria”.

    Well.. No they're sexualities.. Doesn't mean all theoretical sexualities exist e.g the cnuts who say they're sapiosexual.. But they don't fall under gender dysphoria.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    That's like saying "hetrosexual" and "not heterosexual" - we don't need the word "homosexual"

    Or "tall" and "not tall" - we don't need a word for small.

    Not tall could imply someone is of an average height, when in fact they are of a below average height. Tall implies they are above average, small below average. It's not an apt comparison.

    As for hetero, homo, some people are bi and asexual so again those words are required as not-heterosexual isn't an apt description.

    This is not true of trans and non-trans.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Well this depends - do you distinguish between "male" and "female"? Or maybe it;s just malemale and malefemale?

    Do we even need the word "female"? Why not just say "not a man"?

    Because a man is an adult human male. A female is a person with xx chromosomes, and can be a baby, child or adult. Again not an apt comparison.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    Has it now? And why’s it so different in 2019? Honestly who cares that girls are dressed in pink and boys blue. There’s a distinct difference between men and women. Stop trying to say their isn’t.

    It’s not about caring or not caring. It's a fact that boy are traditionally dressed in blue, girls in pink. The choice of colour has no essential link with any inherent biological characteristic of the child. It could just as easily be pink for boys and blue for girls—in fact, it once was.

    And that’s what people are talking about when they talk about gender.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    It’s not about caring or not caring. It's a fact that boy are traditionally dressed in blue, girls in pink. The choice of colour has no essential link with any inherent biological characteristic of the child. It could just as easily be pink for boys and blue for girls—in fact, it once was.

    And that’s what people are talking about when they talk about gender.

    It really isn't. It's a strawman argument.
    To clarify.. To say gender is about immutable preferences, but the preference of blue for girls changed over time.. Therefore gender is a preference or an identity. Nope. That's the strawman. Fashions change. Gender = biological sex. It does not change. XX or XY. Of all the cells in your body, but wanting to change one chromosome in one cell and you simply cannot do it. It's easier to change the definition of what people mean by "man" or "woman".. Or abstract it to "gender".. Run campaigns. Doesn't matter.

    We see what you're doing and it changes nothing.

    Men are men. Women are women. Gender dysphoria is gender dysphoria and trannies are trannies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    antix80 wrote: »
    It really isn't. It's a strawman argument.
    To clarify.. To say gender is about immutable preferences, but the preference of blue for girls changed over time.. Therefore gender is a preference or an identity. Nope. That's the strawman. Fashions change. Gender = biological sex. It does not change. XX or XY. Of all the cells in your body, but wanting to change one chromosome in one cell and you simply cannot do it. It's easier to change the definition of what people mean by "man" or "woman".. Or abstract it to "gender".. Run campaigns. Doesn't matter.

    We see what you're doing and it changes nothing.

    Men are men. Women are women. Gender dysphoria is gender dysphoria and trannies are trannies.

    I suppose this isn’t transphobic.

    Gender is not synonymous with sex in this usage; it is in some instances but it’s not unusual for one word to mean different things in different contexts. Facts don’t care about your feelings etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    Facts don’t care about your feelings etc.


    I think it was you who brought up hetero and homosexual. Would you say homosexual is same sex attraction or an attraction to the same gender identity?And further, do you think lesbians who do not want to have sex with penises on women are transphobic or homosexual men who do not wish to consort with men with vaginas, are they transphobic?

    Is gender or sex the relevant point in homosexuality? Is there bigotry and phobia where people have preferences for their own biological sex?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    Gynoid wrote: »
    I think it was you who brought up hetero and homosexual. Would you say homosexual is same sex attraction or an attraction to the same gender identity?And further, do you think lesbians who do not want to have sex with penises on women are transphobic or homosexual men who do not wish to consort with men with vaginas, are they transphobic?

    Is gender or sex the relevant point in homosexuality? Is there bigotry and phobia where people have preferences for their own biological sex?

    I think the existence of transpeople challenges a lot of deeply engrained notions about gender and sexuality, and that is why they encounter such hostility from some quarters, and mainstream society has only begun to grapple with those challenges.

    People apparently had no need for the terms homo- and heterosexual until the 19th century. To be sure, there always have been some people exclusively attracted to others of the same sex, but people did not see fit to categorize sexual preferences before then. Homosexual acts were something a person did, but homosexual was not considered something you could be. They just didn’t think that way about sexuality.

    So homosexuality, a historically contingent sexual identity has been understood to involve same sex attraction. Transgenderism is apparently difficult to reconcile with this homo- hetero-binary in some people’s views. If a man who has only exhibited heterosexual attraction starts dating a transwoman, is he somehow not still heterosexual? To me, heterosexual still seems appropriate.

    I am pretty dismissive of questions of the form “are lesbians transphobic if they aren’t attracted to transwomen with penises.” People are attracted to whomever they are attracted to, and nobody should be with anyone they don’t want to be with.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    There is nothing insulting about the term cisgender.

    I’m not insulted by being called a ciswoman. It wouldn’t anger me. But I prefer to be called a woman. That preference should be respected like any other, shouldn’t it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    I think the existence of transpeople challenges a lot of deeply engrained notions about gender and sexuality, and that is why they encounter such hostility from some quarters, and mainstream society has only begun to grapple with those challenges.

    People apparently had no need for the terms homo- and heterosexual until the 19th century. To be sure, there always have been some people exclusively attracted to others of the same sex, but people did not see fit to categorize sexual preferences before then. Homosexual acts were something a person did, but homosexual was not considered something you could be. They just didn’t think that way about sexuality.

    So homosexuality, a historically contingent sexual identity has been understood to involve same sex attraction. Transgenderism is apparently difficult to reconcile with this homo- hetero-binary in some people’s views. If a man who has only exhibited heterosexual attraction starts dating a transwoman, is he somehow not still heterosexual? To me, heterosexual still seems appropriate.

    I am pretty dismissive of questions of the form “are lesbians transphobic if they aren’t attracted to transwomen with penises.” People are attracted to whomever they are attracted to, and nobody should be with anyone they don’t want to be with.


    Yes, that is pretty dismissive alright. In that it does not answer the questions at all.
    Tricky area though for allies. Because the vast majority of gay people only like people with the same genitals, ie people who are the same sex as them. Which completely goes against the ideology.

    As for homosexuals and acts etc, I have never really understood the need for people to define themselves by an act ie who they have sex with - I would never think to tell someone I am heterosexual. What relevance does it have? Who cares? Why does homosexuality have to be such a big identity?

    Mainstream society has known about the existence of transexual or third sex people since before old time. It was when trans activists starting insisting on subverting reason about biological reality that there has been a backlash - that and the savage mutilation of children. It was felt necessary for trans ideology to have some ''hard-wiring'' thesis to substantiate their claims - thus the born in the wrong body, assigned at birth, children expressing gender differently being actually a different sex malarkey. It was a terrible mistake to go down that road. The backlash is going to be shocking as more and more detransition and are left with horrific life limiting effects.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    I think the existence of transpeople challenges a lot of deeply engrained notions about gender and sexuality, and that is why they encounter such hostility from some quarters, and mainstream society has only begun to grapple with those challenges.

    The existence of transgender people to me is no different than the existence of delusional people, pedophiles, the feeble-minded, or any other people with mental problems. Some are a danger to themselves and some to others. Whether we tolerate them, treat them, incarcerate them.. It's typically at the mercy of society. We don't legislate to pander to the notions or inclinations of sick people. We don't need to grapple with these issues.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    antix80 wrote: »
    The existence of transgender people to me is no different than the existence of delusional people, pedophiles, the feeble-minded, or any other people with mental problems. Some are a danger to themselves and some to others. Whether we tolerate them, treat them, incarcerate them.. It's typically at the mercy of society. We don't legislate to pander to the notions or inclinations of sick people. We don't need to grapple with these issues.

    I don't agree with this. There are people who have gender dysphoria and are perfectly entitled to do what they wish as adults to accommodate it. I think personally chemicals and surgery is a bad idea but mostly because of the terrible Ouch factor and the future dysfunction to the body. But people can express their masculinity and feminity however they wish. There are some quite happy transexuals I have listened to, very admirable fine people.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,751 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    What are gender neutral dumps like?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,531 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    Dr. Bre wrote: »
    What are gender neutral dumps like?

    Fluid.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,731 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Not tall could imply someone is of an average height, when in fact they are of a below average height. Tall implies they are above average, small below average. It's not an apt comparison.

    As for hetero, homo, some people are bi and asexual so again those words are required as not-heterosexual isn't an apt description.

    This is not true of trans and non-trans.

    But you're telling me the equivalent of "bisexual and asexual people don't exist, same as Harry Potter and Star Wars".

    And that tall people and small people are two distinct categories of above and below average height. There's no third category.

    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Because a man is an adult human male. A female is a person with xx chromosomes, and can be a baby, child or adult. Again not an apt comparison.

    Ok then - "male" and "not male" - we don't need "female".

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    I’m not insulted by being called a ciswoman. It wouldn’t anger me. But I prefer to be called a woman. That preference should be respected like any other, shouldn’t it?

    You are called a woman. In some very specific contexts, you may be called in a ciswoman to distinguish you from a transwoman. Ciswomen are women, so you are still being called a woman. And in all probability this is never going to come up, but if it ever does the intention is to respect the transwoman’s identification as a woman, and not to deny yours.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    You are called a woman. In some very specific contexts, you may be called in a ciswoman to distinguish you from a transwoman. Ciswomen are women, so you are still being called a woman. And in all probability this is never going to come up, but if it ever does the intention is to respect the transwoman’s identification as a woman, and not to deny yours.

    And What if I don't want to be called a cis woman ever? Wheres my respect?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,531 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    Gynoid wrote: »
    And What if I don't want to be called a cis woman ever? Wheres my respect?

    And I don't want to be called a cis-man.

    I'm a man, full stop. A normal man, just like 99.9% of the population, why should I be called anything other than a man?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    And I don't want to be called a cis-man.

    I'm a man, full stop. A normal man, just like 99.9% of the population, why should I be called anything other than a man?

    Whoa Bro.. I think that's about 49% of the population ;):D

    I agree with you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,531 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    Gynoid wrote: »
    Whoa Bro.. I think that's about 49% of the population ;):D

    I agree with you.

    I got my percentages from a right wing website :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    Gynoid wrote: »
    And What if I don't want to be called a cis woman ever? Wheres my respect?

    Then I come back to asking you to explain why have a problem with it, and I will decide if I find the reasons persuasive or not. I don’t automatically just respect every and anyone’s preferences on how they want to be described.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    Gynoid wrote: »
    I don't agree with this. There are people who have gender dysphoria and are perfectly entitled to do what they wish as adults to accommodate it.

    Yup.. They can do whatever they want, once it doesn't infringe on a business owner's rights to implement policies to the contrary. And that's the easy part...

    Public policy is a different thing, and in schools, public services, etc, i wouldn't like to see men - or trans "women" (as they like to identify) entering women's toilets, changing facilities,... Sports, prisons, anything. It's disrespectful to women.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement