Next step in overriding female rights!

What is it about biological fact that you dispute and/or do not understand PoliticsNerd ?

It is impossible to change one’s cells or chromosomes, a humans sex is in every single cell of everyone’s body.

Putting on a dress, taking hormones and in some cases having one’s penis and testicles removed with a surgical procedure to make a fake vagina (which has to be kept open by having an insert in for hours each day), will not and cannot alter one’s chromosomes.

I am all for dressing how you like, but please do not expect me to accept a man in a dress as a biological women because it is a down right impossibility.

^ "Don't ask, don't question, dont challenge our absolutist thinking. "^[sic]

It's the opposite. It is questioning what we are being told. Some organisations teach that if a male goes into work that day and decides they are female, they have access to all the female protected spaces. They are told this in their LGBQT training courses which I believe are created through stonewall. This is where problems lie. Interpretations of law being misunderstood or twisted to fit a particular narrative. Gender specific laws are in place to protect women in particular because we are or can be vulnerable - otherwise, why the laws in the first place?

I don't think anyone has issues with people diagnosed with GID (I may be wrong but I have never got that impression from these debates on GN)

Pointless philosophising about the nature of physical change is obscuring the real issue here, which is why anyone would deny another person personal privacy.
The wish to intrude on someone dealing with the consequences of a heavy menstrual flow, necessitating intimate hygiene, the same as a person dealing with vomiting or suffering diarrhea, is unpleasant and intrusive.

Any normal person would have left discreetly.

eazybee

Pointless philosophising about the nature of physical change is obscuring the real issue here, which is why anyone would deny another person personal privacy.
The wish to intrude on someone dealing with the consequences of a heavy menstrual flow, necessitating intimate hygiene, the same as a person dealing with vomiting or suffering diarrhea, is unpleasant and intrusive.

Any normal person would have left discreetly.

Totally agree

I am not claiming that every person who identifies as a trans woman is a misogynist or a predator. But it is a documented fact that some well-known predators and misogynists have adopted a trans identity explicitly because our misogyny-ridden society has decided that the male predator's feelings about his identity are more significant than women's safety.

Transgender Ideology Isn't About Dignity. It's Warmed Over Misogyny. (Opinion NEWSWEEK 2023))

Read it:
It's about a book written by the author's father, Jack Holland, titled Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice

She says, about her father's book:
His book had a distinct liberal bias, but the nearly 20 years since he died have shown that even in an ultra-permissive, sexually free secular society which has loosened the bonds of family and abolished patriarchal norms, even then, misogyny finds a way to destroy women and girls.

www.newsweek.com/transgender-ideology-isnt-about-dignity-its-warmed-over-misogyny-opinion-1799266

GrannyGravy13

eazybee

Pointless philosophising about the nature of physical change is obscuring the real issue here, which is why anyone would deny another person personal privacy.
The wish to intrude on someone dealing with the consequences of a heavy menstrual flow, necessitating intimate hygiene, the same as a person dealing with vomiting or suffering diarrhea, is unpleasant and intrusive.

Any normal person would have left discreetly.

Totally agree

Me too.

I'm not sure of your hypothesis, PN. Is it that there has been a sudden and accelerated evolution of humans to reverse millennia of biology? How and why do you think this has happened? Why is it so bound up with the 'feelings' of those concerned, as opposed to the changes in environment and so on that have driven evolution up to now? What is the benefit to society? Most evolution is about survival of the fittest. How does having the female sex replaced (or diluted) by people unable to bear children benefit the species? Would it not be evolutionarily more practical to reduce fertility if a reduction in numbers were the driver?

Is it not more likely that the push to remove women as a sex class is political rather than a force of nature? If women are no more, men can dominate entirely, as there is nowhere we can go, nothing we can be, and nothing we can have for ourselves - men can access all areas of our lives and if we complain we are discriminatory, or even criminal.

I expect a reply that answers none of these questions but instead looks for a loophole in something I have said that can be twisted into a 'Gotcha'.

👏👏👏 Brilliant post Doodledog. You have articulated my own thoughts far better than I could have.

Another though re Dr Upton: what does it say about his male colleagues that he won't use the male changing rooms? Surely the male doctors, nurses and paramedics are safe enough to be around?

"It supports your bias, whilst denying anyone else’s."

How does it do that? Mollygo. I certainly wasn't my intention.

Upton wants to continue his pretence that he is a woman.
If he entered the male changing rooms they would probably laugh at him when he started applying his mascara and lip gloss.

Rosie51

👏👏👏 Brilliant post Doodledog. You have articulated my own thoughts far better than I could have.

I second that 👏👏👏 Doodledog.

Is it not more likely that the push to remove women as a sex class is political rather than a force of nature?.

I think so. The legal challenges against 'discrimination', the reporting to authority - even the police - for being mis-gendered, is this not an attempt to enshrine in law the dominance of male-as-female?

Radical feminists, lesbians who want biological women as partners - or just women who want to fight for their private-spaces, are a real challenge to the TRAs.

If they can't win legally - they do what men have always done when they are thwarted - threaten retribution, violence and rape.

I think you are right eazybee he couldn't face being laughed at.

If Upton insists he is a woman, does that mean he can never have prostate problems? (Sorry to be light in a serious conversation ). Will he deny it because he is a woman?

Mollygo, acknowledging nature's change ("Of course nature changes") seems to be at odds with the assertion that biological sex is immutable ("There are only two biological sexes, and sex is immutable."). If nature changes, why wouldn't biological sex, or at least our understanding of it, also be subject to change?

Can't say I've noticed or heard any of my female friends or relatives exclaim the surprise of finding they had grown a penis PN!

Exactly that!

Above was in response to Doodog.

PoliticsNerd

*Mollygo*, acknowledging nature's change ("Of course nature changes") seems to be at odds with the assertion that biological sex is immutable ("There are only two biological sexes, and sex is immutable."). If nature changes, why wouldn't biological sex, or at least our understanding of it, also be subject to change?

You could be absolutely right with what would seem at first glance to be a wild hypothesis PoliticsNerd.

Perhaps God is looking down on earth, rather horrified at what he created
"In the beginning, God created man in His own image, both male and female, and commanded them to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, giving them dominion over all living things"

"Well, I expected humans to be a bit more responsible in caring for this beautiful planet I created for them; I'll start tweaking their sexuality so that they can no longer procreate so fruitfully and destroy the planet."
"All other living creatures shall have dominion over the world."

The Earth will survive after Humankind is extinct! 🌍🌎🌏

I really never thought of it like that until your posts.

Doodledog

GrannyGravy13

eazybee

Pointless philosophising about the nature of physical change is obscuring the real issue here, which is why anyone would deny another person personal privacy.
The wish to intrude on someone dealing with the consequences of a heavy menstrual flow, necessitating intimate hygiene, the same as a person dealing with vomiting or suffering diarrhea, is unpleasant and intrusive.

Any normal person would have left discreetly.

Totally agree

Me too.

I'm not sure of your hypothesis, PN. Is it that there has been a sudden and accelerated evolution of humans to reverse millennia of biology? How and why do you think this has happened? Why is it so bound up with the 'feelings' of those concerned, as opposed to the changes in environment and so on that have driven evolution up to now? What is the benefit to society? Most evolution is about survival of the fittest. How does having the female sex replaced (or diluted) by people unable to bear children benefit the species? Would it not be evolutionarily more practical to reduce fertility if a reduction in numbers were the driver?

Is it not more likely that the push to remove women as a sex class is political rather than a force of nature? If women are no more, men can dominate entirely, as there is nowhere we can go, nothing we can be, and nothing we can have for ourselves - men can access all areas of our lives and if we complain we are discriminatory, or even criminal.

I expect a reply that answers none of these questions but instead looks for a loophole in something I have said that can be twisted into a 'Gotcha'.

Yet again I think this, like Mollygo's post, is a mix-up of two separate arguments Doodledog but first, I'm not sure why you think I was putting forward a "hypothesis". Perhaps you could explain what you think it was. Then, maybe, I can try unravelling again.

Allira

PoliticsNerd

Mollygo, acknowledging nature's change ("Of course nature changes") seems to be at odds with the assertion that biological sex is immutable ("There are only two biological sexes, and sex is immutable."). If nature changes, why wouldn't biological sex, or at least our understanding of it, also be subject to change?

You could be absolutely right with what would seem at first glance to be a wild hypothesis PoliticsNerd.

Perhaps God is looking down on earth, rather horrified at what he created
"In the beginning, God created man in His own image, both male and female, and commanded them to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, giving them dominion over all living things"

"Well, I expected humans to be a bit more responsible in caring for this beautiful planet I created for them; I'll start tweaking their sexuality so that they can no longer procreate so fruitfully and destroy the planet."
"All other living creatures shall have dominion over the world."

The Earth will survive after Humankind is extinct! 🌍🌎🌏

I really never thought of it like that until your posts.

Do you want to be taken seriously?

PoliticsNerd

*Mollygo*, acknowledging nature's change ("Of course nature changes") seems to be at odds with the assertion that biological sex is immutable ("There are only two biological sexes, and sex is immutable."). If nature changes, why wouldn't biological sex, or at least our understanding of it, also be subject to change?

PN the understanding of something would change if the factual basis changed.
Biological sex hasn’t changed, so you can understand all you like.
Your understanding won’t make it true.
My understanding is that supporting a man claiming that he is a woman (AHF) is supporting a liar.
You’re welcome to do that, if that’s what you like. It won’t make his lie into the truth.
Do you support all liars, or just TIM who use the lie to cause harm to females?

Do you want to be taken seriously?

Of course.

Do you?

It's a religion or a form of religion, it always relies on magical thinking and what ifs.

Allira, I suspect someone is playing mind games and is best ignored. The Scottish Government are tying themselves in knots, trying to avoid the man/woman self identifying debate which they created. I had a lot of time for Nicola Sturgeon, but this wasn't her finest moment

Grandmabatty

Allira, I suspect someone is playing mind games and is best ignored. The Scottish Government are tying themselves in knots, trying to avoid the man/woman self identifying debate which they created. I had a lot of time for Nicola Sturgeon, but this wasn't her finest moment

Politics Nerd - you seem to be closing discussion down rather than enlarging it