I'm Andy Fly Me
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
  Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 9.24am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
No. Swimming is a recreational activity which is very easily avoided. Nor, in my opinion, should the use of changing facilities. If people want privacy, for whatever reason, they ought to be able to get it. It seems one situation, which is a real problem, is being used to justify dealing unreasonably with another which isn't. I don't expect most transgenders want to appear naked in front of others, but may want to swim. Why disadvantage them?
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 9.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
The genuine Quinin Crisps have always been there and Crisp's views on transgenderism and the alphabet community weren't too dissimilar to mine. However, we all know there are an emboldened percent in that group thanks to law changes and the support they get from certain types....here this one wants your children to watch him. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Oct 2022 1.45am) This post really demonstrates the confusion that is rife over this issue. Drag Queens are not transgenders!!! Outside of their performance drag personae, they live their lives as men, often gay men. Transgender women are not cross-dressers or drag queens. They are women trapped in the wrong body. Confusing the two does nobody any favours.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 07 Oct 22 9.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
For most, it happened in the womb, although for some it appears to have happened later. The reasons are, I believe, not yet fully understood, but believed to be hormone imbalance but certainly outside my knowledge. That is best left to experts. I also have no knowledge of their capacity to be homosexual or heterosexual. They are though women, not men. Homosexual women use women's facilities. What is the biological cause of gender dysphoria? I do love the over-usage of the word 'may' in 'scientific' articles just as much as I do your equivocal approach in lieu of anything to actually back up ideological statements. A very typical tactic of this approach to be as vague as possible to confuse and cast doubt upon an opposing stance whilst not confirming or evidencing your own. The only other weight to this stance is of course attempt to shoot down, cancel or falsely proclaim 'hate/prejudice/bigotry' upon anyone who dare challenge it. Some people believe they are 'in the wrong body' as much as some people believe 'they are coming for me'. In fact there's far more evidence and far less, if not any societal activism on behalf of the paranoid and delusional. In any case, we don't offer them round the clock security to encourage their illness. Nor do we do anything that puts others at risk just to comfort them. 'It's not the paranoid and/or delusional, it's the people who feign the illness to gain access to guns we need to worry about'.
Edited by Nicholas91 (07 Oct 2022 10.10am)
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 10.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
But the problem is ANY male can identify and use female facilities putting females at potential risk and feeling threatened. Why should this be so? I do not see why the minority view is being allowed to override the majority, another example of woke Britain So we need to deal with the actual problem and not target people who are neither part of it, nor whose isolation will impact it.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 10.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Quite ironic that people who claim to be women have so little empathy for the way other women feel about certain issues. It's also odd that in a time when cultural appropriation is regarded as a crime that gender appropriation is a laudable endeavour. What evidence do you have for that claim? I don't think it's in any way true. A few activists may be going over the top, but they aren't representative, and their activities mustn't be allowed to obscure the real issues. I believe most transgenders have no wish at all to upset other women, are very aware of the potential for misunderstanding, and are very careful and considerate. It just needs some common sense.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 10.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Yup you change your gender or your sexual orientation and they all rush to celebrate you. However if you identify as a person of a different ethnic background they crucify you. Go figure. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Transgenders don't so much "change" their gender as realise it isn't what their body indicates it is. I am less informed about anyone who seeks to identify as a different ethnic background but I guess that could happen to those with a mixed background.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 10.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
What is the biological cause of gender dysphoria? I do love the over-usage of the word 'may' in 'scientific' articles just as much as I do your equivocal approach in lieu of anything to actually back up ideological statements. A very typical tactic of this approach to be as vague as possible to confuse and cast doubt upon an opposing stance whilst not confirming or evidencing your own. The only other weight to this stance is of course attempt to shoot down, cancel or falsely proclaim 'hate/prejudice/bigotry' upon anyone who dare challenge it. Some people believe they are 'in the wrong body' as much as some people believe 'they are coming for me'. In fact there's far more evidence and far less, if not any societal activism on behalf of the paranoid and delusional. In any case, we don't offer them round the clock security to encourage their illness. Nor do we do anything that puts others at risk just to comfort them. 'It's not the paranoid and/or delusional, it's the people who feign the illness to gain access to guns we need to worry about'.
Edited by Nicholas91 (07 Oct 2022 10.10am) The fact that the understanding of the causes remains work in progress is no reason not to recognise that the condition exists. Cancer exists. Whilst much progress has been made in understanding its causes, that work is incomplete and ongoing. Using "may" only indicates a working hypothesis, which is a very common way for scientific work to proceed. It's the best explanation unless and until a better one emerges. Not treating people who genuinely have a condition, just because some t***s feign it, would mean we could shut down the NHS and save ourselves a load of money. We need to separate the issues and deal with them appropriately.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 07 Oct 22 10.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
I saw this on another site. A gay activist posted about his time in the seventies when there was a loose affiliation with various groups and labour all campaigning for different rights. They were infiltrated by paedophiles under the guise of gay rights eventually the gay community realised and pushed them out. He feels that this is what is happening with Trans gender activists they are being hijacked by these individuals and the Trans community needs to wake up and denounce them. One of the directors of Mermaids has just be outed as pro paedophile. In any campaign group there will always be people with nasty ideas but if you want to get anywhere with your campaign you need to deal with them.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Palace Old Geezer Midhurst 07 Oct 22 10.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Sorry lads, but gnarled old folk like me just don't get all this gender recognition stuff. I now know it's all gone too far when the Local Government Association wants to do away with referring to 'Mum and Dad'. Proof to me that the world has definitely gone bonkers.
Dad and I watched games standing on the muddy slope of the Holmesdale Road end. He cheered and I rattled. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 07 Oct 22 10.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The fact that the understanding of the causes remains work in progress is no reason not to recognise that the condition exists. Cancer exists. Whilst much progress has been made in understanding its causes, that work is incomplete and ongoing. Using "may" only indicates a working hypothesis, which is a very common way for scientific work to proceed. It's the best explanation unless and until a better one emerges. Not treating people who genuinely have a condition, just because some t***s feign it, would mean we could shut down the NHS and save ourselves a load of money. We need to separate the issues and deal with them appropriately. 1. So if it is only a hypothesis at this stage why are you encouraging radical changes to society, which endangers women, to accommodate a hypothetical notion from a tiny minority? A hypothesis, no matter how eloquent, that cannot be practically proven is useless. 2. Treating people with a condition is not the same as bowing to their every whim, in fact it is entirely different and often counter-productive and dangerous. 3. Basing your entire view and stance off of your interaction with one or two of your kin to support and aggressively campaign societal change is ludicrous. 4. Deflecting the endangering of woman with a ridiculous reasoning of 'we should concentrate on perpetrators' is morally bankrupt. Again, it's the equivalent of arming the paranoid, letting your 'lovely' fox into the rabbit hutch, bull in a china shop, cat amongst pigeons, whatever, just to stroke your own ego and say 'look how progressive, compassionate and worthy of martyr status to this cause I am'. Your individual subjective experience and selfish motivations do not justify your commentary on this. The fact you cannot see a wider picture beyond your own motivation and disregard all potential ramifications, which could be severe to many, to suit your own agenda in supporting a hypothetical notion, is appalling.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 07 Oct 22 11.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
So we need to deal with the actual problem and not target people who are neither part of it, nor whose isolation will impact it. But no one is prepared to deal with the problem, that is the point. Anyone who speaks out about the issue are branded transphobic, Councils and businesses are allowing any one who identifies as female to invade womens private spaces. At the present time the people being targeted are biological women, who are not being allowed their own private space and have the audacity to speak out against it
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 11.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I saw this on another site. A gay activist posted about his time in the seventies when there was a loose affiliation with various groups and labour all campaigning for different rights. They were infiltrated by paedophiles under the guise of gay rights eventually the gay community realised and pushed them out. He feels that this is what is happening with Trans gender activists they are being hijacked by these individuals and the Trans community needs to wake up and denounce them. One of the directors of Mermaids has just be outed as pro paedophile. In any campaign group there will always be people with nasty ideas but if you want to get anywhere with your campaign you need to deal with them. That's something we can all agree with, and I will put to my transgender grandchild the next time I speak to them. I have every expectation they will wholeheartedly agree. As an aside, I don't think that the Mermaid director has been "outed" as pro-paedophile at all. That's just Daily Mail distortion. He once spoke at an event when something he said, taken out of context, has the capacity of being presented in that way. Much more evidence is required before such a slur can be confirmed. The Mail is a scurrilous rag, winding people up and reinforcing prejudice. They are about to get their knuckles severely rapped, if the actions announced yesterday are successful.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.