Next step in overriding female rights!

Galaxy

You see it is too early to writing the word penis.

... have a brew!

I'm sure that will not stop you tearing into those who disagree
Could equally truthfully be said of you PN.

The only difference is that one of us knows you cannot change sex.
The other prefers using arguments that obfuscate the main issue.

PoliticsNerd

It really doesn't mater how you "describe" the second argument Doodledog.

Is that what’s known as a word salad?

You see it is too early to writing the word penis.

The deep sexism behind the idea for example that a man who removes his penus is now a woman is like something from the dark ages. He is I am afraid still a man.

We already know that some aspects of sex can be altered medically because biological sex is not solely determined by chromosomes - transgender people can notably change their physical characteristics via hormone therapy and surgery, but it doesn't alter the underlying genetic make-up and there is no evidence to date that suggests otherwise.

It really doesn't mater how you "describe" the second argument Doodledog.

PN
However you then conflate this with an argument about possible changes to humans over time. This is too broad as one argument and makes the whole irrational.

You were actually the one who introduced the changes over time into the thread.
No verifiable changes in there only being two sexes has yet appeared.

Perhaps you could explain what you think it was. Then, maybe, I can try unravelling again.
Is it that there has been a sudden and accelerated evolution of humans to reverse millennia of biology?

Buying thinking time?

I don't know if you understand what the fallacy of conflation is but that is what I am seeing here.

In many of the posts you have conflated two concepts as if they are one. Firstly the, shall we call them, political arguments. Whether I felt for or against the transsexual community, having seen the way those arguments put on here I would want nothing to do with them. That is simply a personal view.

However you then conflate this with an argument about possible changes to humans over time. This is too broad as one argument and makes the whole irrational.

I'm sure that will not stop you tearing into those who disagree with you so, having worked out what was troubling me with your argument I will let you get on with that.

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

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

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

Do you want to be taken seriously?

Of course.

Do you?

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?

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?

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.

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.

Above was in response to Doodog.

Exactly that!

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!

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?

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?

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

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.