Stark wrote: » People who differ to the norm deserve the same rights and respect as people who are "normal" as long as their differences are not doing harm to other people, simple as. No need to dig out the biology textbooks to try and justify it.
donaghs wrote: » He's certainly seems far too old to be getting into petty internet arguments. But are you saying he should be banned for having a "protracted, public nervous breakdown being played out on social media"???
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Ah now, this is a tad economical with the truth. She posted a tweet urging people to report his account. He responded to that. She posted it publicly, she can hardly complain about him responding.
dd973 wrote: » Never really liked Linehan that much but don't know why he'd want to preoccupy himself with Trans people or LGBT politics, how does any of that stuff impinge on his life?
The Floyd p wrote: » I'm delighted he's been thrown off the platform, same as that Hopkins yoke, anyone who spews that much negativity deserves to be gone. He didn't have a dog in this fight beyond some half-hearted excuse about hating bullying, but still posted with such regularity that it became an obsession. Hopefully he can use this time to educate himself and better himself, ultimately.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Not all of the following would be written into law but they all should be considered: single sex spaces such as domestic violence shelters, prisons, changing rooms. The right to have a female or male doctor - that one might not be written into law but it’s pretty important to a lot of people. A name might not denote femaleness or maleness but a woman may want a female doctor and a man may want a male doctor. A police officer carrying out a full body search - would a woman be able to object to a transgender police officer doing that search? Or vice versa for men? Biological males competing against women in sports. So, what do you think? Is any of the above reasonable? Or is it selfish? Another thing that nobody can explain to me is why transgender women’s safety fears are taken seriously by some who in the same breath dismiss women’s safety fears. Why is one taken seriously and the other not?
joeguevara wrote: » What are sex based rights specifically? I just read Rowlings open letter explaining her tweet and puts context. Sex based rights and gender based rights can do-exist. But if you want to preserve sex based rights because of selfish reasons and openly state that transgender as a fad and huge amounts have been brainwashed into it. I do think that in such complicated topics where it can be quite emotive, it is a bit rich hiding behind free speech when you are limiting yourself to 280 characters. If you want free speech use it to its fullest.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » How so? And the implication here if that if gender-based rights aren’t to be diminished, then sex-based rights will have to be eroded. Are sex-based rights unimportant? Vulnerable women and girls rely on those rights.
joeguevara wrote: » I admitted I don’t have a clue. I admitted I don’t have a real interest in the whole gender debate. Obviously I’m going to make mistakes. But i don’t publish hate speech. I don’t cause distress for people by denying their identity. I actually go by a live and let live philosophy. Better off.If you want to preserve rights that means gender based rights are diminished, But a person who isn’t an expert should err on the side of caution and think about the effect of tweets.
Stark wrote: » I sort of feel we're disappearing down the same rabbit hole that the homophobia threads descend into in trying to find biological explanations to justify the existence of people who are differ to the majority. Ie: one side appealing to nature and saying that to express attraction to or identification with the "wrong" gender is "biologically unnatural" and therefore wrong, and the other side trying to come up with biological justifications such that homosexuality is present in non-human animals, or that differences in brain chemistry exist and the like. The "lifestyle choice" vs "born this way" arguments. As opposed to calling out the appeal to nature fallacy for what it is and how modern civilisation is far removed from how animals live or living purely according to our biological instincts. People who differ to the norm deserve the same rights and respect as people who are "normal" as long as their differences are not doing harm to other people, simple as. No need to dig out the biology textbooks to try and justify it.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » You... didn’t even read the abstract for this paper, did you? It says nothing about there being more than two sexes, it just outlines different way to confirm biological sex. As for protected status, in the UK, where Rowling lives, sex is a protected characteristic distinct from gender. Sex-based rights (distinct from gender-based rights) exist there. Did you know that? And people like Rowling are being heavily criticised for wanting them to be preserved. Also, LOL at you backing away from something you declared was “inherently incorrect” upthread. I mean, it was obvious you hadn’t a clue what you were talking about but such swagger.
super_furry wrote: » Ah yes, just like Karl Marx said, as working people must seize the means of production to be free, so should sh1t-posters seize the means of their internet rants. Not sure how the American First Amendment helps Linehan mind you, but I'm sure a dedicated Marxist like yourself can work it out.
joeguevara wrote: » See the thing is I am not a scientist and have no qualifications to begin to answer what you have asked. The beauty of it is though because I’m not qualified I don’t go posting social media denying the existence of protected genders. As for peer reviewed articles try this one https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001899
Smegging hell wrote: » Ooooh... scary Irish men. Would you like to recruit me? :P
joeguevara wrote: » If he is here I just wanted to say ‘Deres more to oireland Dan dis’.
joeguevara wrote: » See the thing is I am not a scientist and have no qualifications to begin to answer what you have asked. The beauty of it is though because I’m not qualified I don’t go posting social media denying the existence of protected genders.As for peer reviewed articles try this one https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001899
Smegging hell wrote: » Linehan tweeted a link to a thread on boards a few weeks ago so maybe he'll pop up here too.
super_furry wrote: » Cry-arsing onto Mumsnet at 3am in the morning is a sure sign you need help. It's basically a step away from telling McDonald's cashiers about your ex-wife and how she's turning the kids against you.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » That’s an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed article. And it’s been widely criticised. Beloved of bovine ‘sex is a spectrum’ mouth-breathers though. If there’s more than two sexes, can you named the third gamete? The fourth? The fifth? Also, define ‘woman’ and ‘man’ without referring to either biological sex or gender stereotypes.
joeguevara wrote: » I never said that. I said that it’s incorrect to simplify biological sex to simply XY and XX. No need to be embarrassed for me, I would have assumed the same thing but then actually did a bit of research. I found this article fascinating. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
Deleted User wrote: » That was exactly Twitter's argument for years. "Hey, we're just the middleman." Facebook still defend that ground more resolutely. It's why a lot of people want the likes of Twitter and Facebook nationalised, because it's the modern public square. If it was nationalised it would fall directly under the First Amendment.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a605da6df673e065ac5a7e976411f425.svg)
