Scarf in Suffragette colours not allowed in Scottish Parliament.

I don't see any connection with the appalling treatment of homosexual men with medical intervention. They were given medication to suppress the feelings they had that made them who they were; gay men sexually attracted to other men.

There is no connection.

What is more relevant is the medical intervention that is undergone willingly by people who believe that there is something wrong with their perfectly healthy bodies.

Whether they get parts cut off, or grafted on, or take opposite-sex hormones, they are damaging themselves.
Those are the medical interventions that should cause concern.

undergone willingly yes but not always with the absolute certainty that this is what they really need, and is going to be the right decision in the long term FarNorth.

Yes Smileless, and especially when they are given the misinformation that the outcome is reversible, without any information about what that would entail.

It's yet another example of the things that cause problems on these threads. An assumption that we are all ill-informed and blinkered. That we won't know anything about minority groups, or if we do then it will be misinformation based on prejudice, and that we need to be 'told how it is' by the only person who knows or cares anything about oppression, prejudice or inequality, whether that is women's suffrage, sexism in general, homophobia, racism or anything else.

There is no link between any of those things and trans issues. Yes, they are all examples of minority groups who suffered prejudice; but none of them is a case of a group asking to have the biologically impossible recognised in law, to have more rights in law than other groups, to have those rights based on 'feelings' rather than facts, and for those laws to put them in positions of superiority over women (whether to 'win' prizes in sport or 'gain' places on equalising shortlists) or to give them access to spaces where women and girls may be vulnerable. Also, no other minority group has, to my knowledge, wanted to mutilate children so that they can join their ranks, and to brainwash others into supporting them. Propaganda has been used effectively against the groups I mentioned above, but none of them has presented themselves as being 'the most oppressed minority' even when that was blatantly obviously the case.

The constant dragging in of other minorities or oppressed groups does not hold water, and it is ironic that someone who claims to be a supporter of all of them would equate their struggles with a group who is looking for all of the above, and who is willing to use violence and intimidation to achieve their aims.

Saetana

This is all I have to say on the subject:

Why do I have the feeling that that post is going to be used by another poster. 🤔

An excellent precis of the situation Doodledog. Thank you.

Doodledog
Another brilliant post 👏👏
an assumption that we are all I’ll informed and blinkered
And yet they 😉 still keep hammering their message home in the belief that we are going to accept their thinking.
The above applies to most topics on News&Politics 😡

Thank you Doodledog.
There’s a lack of meaningful response to your posts from ‘some posters’.

I guess we'll just have to keep hammering home our message Meryl.

My thanks too Doodle.

Thanks, everyone. It's an uphill struggle this weekend, isn't it?

Well said Doodledog I agree with you completely.

It's always an uphill struggle Doodle.

Very well put Doodledog

Doodledog, 👍

Ah I see
Ask a question and then claim you knew all the time
Doodledog

Why would he need a medical diagnosis to tell him he is sexually attracted to other men?

So foolishly I explain the history and parrallels between considering homosexuality a medical problem and considering gender dysphoria a medical problem

But of course Doodledog didn't really want to know.

Just wanted an excuse to accuse me of
An assumption that we are all ill-informed and blinkered. That we won't know anything about minority groups, or if we do then it will be misinformation based on prejudice, and that we need to be 'told how it is' by the only person who knows or cares anything about oppression, prejudice or inequality, whether that is women's suffrage, sexism in general, homophobia, racism or anything else

And gain another round of applause.

Well next time you wonder why your questions don't get answered refer back to this thread.

FarNorth

There is no connection.

What is more relevant is the medical intervention that is undergone willingly by people who believe that there is something wrong with their perfectly healthy bodies.

Whether they get parts cut off, or grafted on, or take opposite-sex hormones, they are damaging themselves.
Those are the medical interventions that should cause concern.

Have you any comment about my post Glorianny?

FarNorth

All right Glorianny what is your take on the idea that some men might claim that they feel like women, for predatory reasons?

Do you believe it never happens?

If you believe it happens, how should it be dealt with?

I don't already know your view on this.

No, that was a rhetorical question, as well you know. The idea is so ludicrous that it couldn't be otherwise.

As for not getting answers, we all know that you just ignore the ones you are unable to answer, either because the answers would contradict your self-congratulatory orthodoxy, because they expose the weakness in your arguments, or because you just don't know.

All I am asking is how the logical leap between appearance causing particular treatment and 'therefore 'TWAW' works, as it is a mystery to me. I am fully aware that if you could present a patronising reply you would have done it by now.

FarNorth

You agree with ScotGov that 'female' includes males with GRCs?

Just checking with this one Glorianny - I think your answer would be that you do agree with that .

Doodle asked why a homosexual would need a medical diagnosis to tell him he's sexually attracted to other men.

The explanation you gave didn't address her question Glorianny. Gender dysphoria is an unease someone may have about a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity.

It has nothing to do with homosexuality and same sex attraction.

Doodledog

No, that was a rhetorical question, as well you know. The idea is so ludicrous that it couldn't be otherwise.

As for not getting answers, we all know that you just ignore the ones you are unable to answer, either because the answers would contradict your self-congratulatory orthodoxy, because they expose the weakness in your arguments, or because you just don't know.

All I am asking is how the logical leap between appearance causing particular treatment and 'therefore 'TWAW' works, as it is a mystery to me. I am fully aware that if you could present a patronising reply you would have done it by now.

Perhaps if you want to ask rhetorical questions you could stick to the convention of not using a question mark Doodledog then I would know.
There's a really interesting if harrowing account of medical interventions for homosexuals in the '50s www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC344257/
But you won't be interested.

FarNorth

FarNorth

All right Glorianny what is your take on the idea that some men might claim that they feel like women, for predatory reasons?

Do you believe it never happens?

If you believe it happens, how should it be dealt with?

I don't already know your view on this.

Some men claim all sorts of things FarNorth quite a few in order to access women they know to be vulnerable and sometimes to access their children.
As far as I know none of the things they claim to be are actually illegal although they undoubtedly cause harm to women and children. And in fact you need to ask if you want to know if a man has a record as a paedophile, so why would you focus on men using gender change to access women?
Self ID never means just deciding to identify as a woman. It means a legal process that is reasonable and does not require medical assessment.

Self ID never means just deciding to identify as a woman of course it does, that's why it's such a contentious issue. What legal process does Eddie Izzard for example have to go through on the days he identifies as a woman?

Perhaps if you want to ask rhetorical questions you could stick to the convention of not using a question mark Doodledog then I would know.

So you thought it was a question requiring an answer, despite the lack of a question mark? 'Funny that', as trisher used to say . You've still avoided answering my well-signalled and oft-repeated question though. Does it get too close to the nub of the matter for you?

*There's a really interesting if harrowing account of medical interventions for homosexuals in the '50s www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC344257/*

I am fully aware of how homosexuals used to be treated.

But you won't be interested.
Omniscient as you seem to think you are, you know the square root of bugger all about what I know or don't know, or what might interest me.

The fact, however, remains that there is no link between what gay people went through and the current situation, which is that the trans lobby wants to change the law to accommodate the wishes of some transwomen, with no thought for the women they are using aside, and phoney transwomen, who are indistinguishable from the real thing, are capitalising on this to gain access to vulnerable women and girls.

Meanwhile, there is an apparent need for a Trans Awareness Week because of prejudice, which can't be helped by the fact that many TRAs use violence and intimidation to force their cause onto others. Transpeople who just want live in peace, with no 'awareness' thrust upon them have their wishes ignored too. Still, so long as the virtue signallers get their strokes from one another, and the misogynists can see frightened women, that'll be ok, won't it? <-- question mark.