Not trying all that hard with the treatment

transgender

 A transgender carer who suffocated her terminally-ill father with a plastic bag in what she claims was a suicide pact is facing years behind bars after being convicted of his murder.

I guess you have to do a bit more work on the depilation before you get your own reality series.

71 comments on “Not trying all that hard with the treatment

  1. I think I’d go down the identify as female route if I went away for a stretch. Minimal physical risk, plus they’re not all munters and you’d be in pretty high demand.

  2. Odd case. Apparently a pair of hoarders, confined to the ground floor of the house (in a very nice part of Dagenham!) die to all the stuff they’d piled into the other rooms.

  3. The first stage in any criminal conspiracy should be to stash a wig, a couple of plus-size dresses and size 11 heels in the spare room wardrobe and establish a history of deranged comments about trans oppression on a few websites.

  4. MC – “The first stage in any criminal conspiracy should be to stash a wig, a couple of plus-size dresses and size 11 heels in the spare room wardrobe and establish a history of deranged comments about trans oppression on a few websites.”

    And if you want to murder your neighbour, make sure you make a few comments on line about how his hurtful homophobic comments have made you fear for your life.

  5. Hey, let’s all point and laugh at the mentally ill…

    Sheesh.

    Bloke (yes, bloke) smothers his ill dad with a plastic bag and I’m supposed to feel sympathetic. Pfft!

  6. Dr Cromarty – Bloke (yes, bloke) smothers his ill dad with a plastic bag and I’m supposed to feel sympathetic. Pfft!

    Well, he is an orphan…

  7. “I guess you have to do a bit more work on the depilation ”

    I guess that being held in a police cell for at least a day is likely to result in a lower standard of personal grooming than is the norm. Whatever your views on transgenderism, there’s nothing funny or ironic about that.

  8. “Bloke (yes, bloke) smothers his ill dad with a plastic bag and I’m supposed to feel sympathetic. Pfft!”

    Yeah. That’s why Tim picked on him. He wants to make fun of transgender people, but people might think he was a bit of shit for picking on vulnerable people who are widely abused and bullied by society but who (mostly) do nobody else any harm. So he finds somebody who also happens to be a murderer, figuring that nobody will be able to show any sympathy and so he’ll get away with it.

    His comment didn’t have anything to do with the murder. It didn’t have anything to do with SJWs or other authoritarians. It was simply laughing at the idea of a guy looking like a guy wanting to be a girl.

    Well hah very hah.

    We’ve got people here who defend pornography and prostitution as being nobody else’s business. But when someone steps outside their moral boundaries they’re happy to join the mob and put the boot in.

    It’s the same mentality as the SJWs, just a different tribe, a different set of shibboleths. Scum, the lot of them.

    Someone who, with hindsight, was obviously in a fragile mental state was left to look after a bed-bound terminally ill relative. That’s a major life-destroying strain on even the strongest willed, and carers coming to the end of their tether and killing the patient are far from unknown. And had they been cis-gendered, that’s how it would have been seen. Tragic and wrong, on all sorts of levels, but not worth a post. It’s just an excuse.

    “NiV, but the transgender SJW’s would have us believe that transgenders are not mentally ill.”

    They’d also have you believe that the cis-genders are not mentally ill, but I bet I could point to quite a few examples.

    There’s no evidence that this guy is an SJW, so don’t give me any crap about this having anything to do with SJWs. It’s nothing to do with the murder, either. It’s just an excuse for starting a point-and-laugh mob at the social outsider.

  9. NiV-

    Being probably the commentariat’s most hysterical defender of porn and prostitution, I just want to point out that transgenderism is not a “moral” issue or a matter of moral boundaries.

    It’s actually an ontological question of whether a person who claims to be a thing is that thing. If I claim that I’m really a cat, and everyone else should consider me a cat and treat me as one, that is not immoral. But it might be mad. Because it is an issue of whether a thing is a thing, and whether other people are free to decide what sort of thing they are observing.

    Then the SJWs (radfems excluded) then turn it into, in their minds, a moral issue, by claiming that people who do not agree that a Thing A is actually a Thing B are discriminators and bigots.

    It’s an issue of “is” not “ought”.

  10. @NiV

    . He wants to make fun of transgender people,

    If by “make fun of” you mean point out something obvious, then yes. Weird definition of “make fun of” though.

  11. NiV – how come you’re always white knighting for transformers?

    Ian B – If I claim that I’m really a cat, and everyone else should consider me a cat and treat me as one, that is not immoral.

    I wish I was a cat.

    But I think autogynophelia is more like anorexia and other body image disorders. It’s a moral issue in the sense that it’s wicked to enable sick people to harm themselves.

  12. Someone who, with hindsight, was obviously in a fragile mental state

    Well I suppose that’s one interpretation. Done a mental state assessment, have you? “Claire” seems like a nasty, manipulative fuck reading through his history. He shat in someone’s pants for crying out loud.

    “Fragile” my arse

  13. NiV>

    Arguing with those round here suffering from the green-eyed-monster is a waste of time. The simple fact is that those of us without some kind of problem in that regard will (because we’re English and as a matter of basic politeness) call anyone saying ‘call me a taxi’ a taxi, whether or not they’re actually black and cablike.

  14. Steve>

    “It’s a moral issue in the sense that it’s wicked to enable sick people to harm themselves.”

    In what sense is that wicked? Perhaps allowing self-harm is the lesser of two evils, given that we can’t do anything (soon enough, at least) about the societal problems that are causing the great unhappiness that is expressed by what you consider self-harm.

    Notably, we do allow precisely that when it comes to forms of self-harm such as drug addiction, cutting, eating disorders, and so-on. It’s part of the treatment process.

    Ian B/Ritchie>

    “It’s actually an ontological question of whether a person who claims to be a thing is that thing.”

    I see we’ve found yet another subject of which you’re entirely ignorant. No, it isn’t any such question. There is simple no doubt whatsoever that some people are biologically neither male nor female.

  15. Dave – when girls are diagnosed with anorexia we offer them moral support, therapy, and in extreme cases, direct medical supervision.

    We don’t tell them it’s wonderful and brave to starve themselves. We don’t give them diet pills. We don’t agitate for Coronation Street to show anorexic characters in a positive light.

    We don’t try to talk ourselves into thinking looking like a concentration camp victim is a libertarian issue, or a social justice issue, or a marvellous expression of English eccentricity.

  16. There is simple no doubt whatsoever that some people are biologically neither male nor female.

    Oh, I’m glad you’ve sorted that out for the rest of us.

    Unfortunately, you’re not addressing the actual issue, since this person is not biologically intersex. He is a male who believes he is female, or ought to be female, one or the other. And what the cause of that is, we actually do not know.

    What we do know is that biologically he is entirely male, not “neither one nor the other”. Talking of which, by the way, nobody is “neither”, but some are in various ways a mixture.

    It all comes down to the question, which current science cannot answer, of whether a human infant is born with the knowledge of what sex they are hardwired in the brain. Which, considering humans learn everything else about the world by observation, seems frankly highly unlikely. There is simply no reason for evolution to encode this solitary particle of information genetically.

  17. “It’s actually an ontological question of whether a person who claims to be a thing is that thing.”

    There are lots of things people claim to be things that are not. The Pope claims to be God’s representative on Earth. Should he be mocked for it, as the SJWs do? There are people who believe in souls, and that life starts at conception when the soul is inserted into the fertilized egg by God. There are people who think that electricity consists of lots of electrons zipping down wires really fast. There are people who believe in rigid bodies, that you can buy food without any ‘chemicals’ in it, and that Newton’s law of gravitation is true.

    A large percentage of things people believe are wrong. A large percentage of the things they believe in don’t exist, or are not what they think they are. You’re entitled to your opinion, and welcome to express it – that’s what freedom of belief is about. If it was just about the factual disagreement, you could just say so and move on. It doesn’t take dozens of mockery-laden posts and comments to do so.

    But I detest bullying – except when applied to people who are themselves bullies. A lot of the stuff here isn’t about ontological statements – it’s far too selective for that. While I detest what you say, I’d defend to the death your right to say it. But primarily because that preserves my right to say I detest it.

    “NiV – how come you’re always white knighting for transformers?”

    Tim got asked that same question the other day with regard to his defence of prostitution. I refer you to his answer.

    Or Niemoller’s for that matter.

    “Well I suppose that’s one interpretation. Done a mental state assessment, have you?”

    Attempted suicide seems like a pretty good indicator.

  18. Steve>

    Except we do do almost all those things. You have to utterly reject reality to pretend as you do. Ironic, given your complaints.

    Ian B>

    You continue to display your ignorance of, among other things, your own ignorance.

    “What we do know is that biologically he is entirely male”

    We know nothing of the kind. We don’t even know if there is any such thing.

    “It all comes down to the question, which current science cannot answer, of whether a human infant is born with the knowledge of what sex they are hardwired in the brain.”

    Surprisingly enough, you’re completely wrong again. That is not only not fundamental, it’s not even close to relevant. Why would it be? (Hint: that’s a rhetorical question aimed at getting you to understand your misconceptions about what transgender actually means.)

  19. “It all comes down to the question, which current science cannot answer, of whether a human infant is born with the knowledge of what sex they are hardwired in the brain. Which, considering humans learn everything else about the world by observation, seems frankly highly unlikely. There is simply no reason for evolution to encode this solitary particle of information genetically.”

    Hmm. So is that why kids show no interest in sex until they hit puberty, and then suddenly find pictures of the opposite sex extremely interesting? They’re only doing it because their parents and teachers taught them to do so?

    Oh dear.

    “We don’t try to talk ourselves into thinking looking like a concentration camp victim is a libertarian issue, or a social justice issue, or a marvellous expression of English eccentricity.”

    The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

    That sounds like a libertarian issue to me…

  20. Dave – now you’re just being a big silly goose.

    The point is we don’t accept anorexia as an expression of personal identity. Cos it ain’t. We recognise it as a dangerous health problem and try to help sufferers come to terms with their bodies and return to psychiatric health.

    With the gender confused we do the opposite. We encourage the poor bastards to addle their brains with artificial hormones and scar their bodies with unnecessary surgery. And typically the results are awful.

    No wonder so many of them end up killing themselves.

  21. NiV-

    Well actually, a lot of people do ridicule the Pope, and religious beliefs, and take a look at the battering Creationists get. I think people who believe in homeopathy, crystal healing and anal jetwashing deserve a thorough dose of ridicule. Take a look at Mitchell and Webb’s very funny “Homeopathic A&E” sketch on YouTube.

    But the point is, this isn’t about their right to believe things. It’s about being obligated to agree with them. I do not mind Christians and do not go out of my way to laugh at them. But I would strongly object to the State, or SJWs, or whoever, demanding that I agree with them that God exists. That is when it becomes an issue for me. Because I am now being told to believe something I do not believe, and up with that I shall not put.

    As to the issue of humour itself; men pretending to be women are funny to some varying degree, hence the rich history of it in British comedy. Ronnie Barker dressed as a woman is funny in itself. Why? Juxtaposition and the reversal of expectations. Hence drag queens, male impersonators, and all the rest.

    Dave-

    We know nothing of the kind. We don’t even know if there is any such thing.

    If there is no such thing as male and female, there can be no such thing as trangenderism. Discuss.

    Surprisingly enough, you’re completely wrong again. That is not only not fundamental, it’s not even close to relevant.

    So, the claim that a man is a woman in a man’s body (note the “is”) isn’t of issue? Is that not the basic claim of the trans narrative?

    Are you going to tell us what you think transgender actually means, or just sit there saying “you are wrong” and not presenting any explanation of what is wrong? What are these misconceptions?

  22. Hmm. So is that why kids show no interest in sex until they hit puberty, and then suddenly find pictures of the opposite sex extremely interesting? They’re only doing it because their parents and teachers taught them to do so?

    That’s behaviour, not knowledge. If you’re going to discus this issue, you must grasp the difference. The fundamental claim of trans is that people are born with the knowledge of what sex they are, and it is the opposite of what their body is.

  23. Steve>

    “The point is we don’t accept anorexia as an expression of personal identity”

    The point is that that’s precisely what we do as the first step in treating people who have problems with eating disorders. It’s interesting that you’re apparently as ignorant of other psychological issues as of the ones surrounding sex/gender identity. Perhaps you might consider having less-strongly-held opinions on subjects you’re ignorant of?

    “We encourage the poor bastards ”

    Yup, pig-ignorant. We do the exact opposite.

    “typically the results are awful. No wonder so many of them end up killing themselves.”

    For some reason you put your paragraph break the wrong side of that little bit of intolerance, which is plainly of just the kind that makes people incredibly unhappy with the way society views them.

    Let’s not beat about the bush here, you’re contributing to those deaths. Has it occurred to you that given the stakes you might do better to keep quiet until you have something positive to offer?

  24. Attempted suicide seems like a pretty good indicator

    “Claire” was found cold and wet on cliffs. That’s not a suicide attempt. We only have his word it is.

  25. Ian Ritchie>

    “The fundamental claim of trans is that people are born with the knowledge of what sex they are”

    I’m afraid ‘pulled from your fundament’ is not the same as ‘fundamental’.

    Anyway, at least now we can all see where you’ve gone so wrong.

    “If there is no such thing as male and female, there can be no such thing as trangenderism. Discuss.”

    There’s nothing to discuss. That’s a non sequitur. Why do you see a link between the ‘if’ and ‘then’?

    “the claim that a man is a woman in a man’s body (note the “is”) isn’t of issue? Is that not the basic claim of the trans narrative?”

    That’s right, it’s not.

    “Are you going to tell us what you think transgender actually means”

    It has nothing to do with what I think. It’s about what the term actually means.

    “Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.”

    (Emphasis added.)

    http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

    Really, you’re just displaying your ignorance of the most basic foundations on which this discussion rests. No wonder you’re so terribly, harmfully, wrong.

  26. Oh, FFS, apparently no emphasis added. What happened to the preview box?

    I intended to underline “typically associated”

  27. Anyway, regarding the actual case. Having cared for my terminally ill mother who begged me to end her life, I think we should be very reluctant to judge it murder. The suffering of the terminally ill can often be horrendous, particularly psychologically. Animals get put out of their misery. Humans are forced to live in pain and distress. It’s a big issue.

  28. It seems that Tim is reduced to posting bollocks today. Normally at the weekend, he just makes moronic posts but joking about a suicide pact is going a bit far even for the standards of his weekend posts.

  29. NiV – This is how smart people tend to outsmart themselves.

    When you find yourself quoting John Stuart Mill to justify men chopping their own dicks off, you’ve intellectualised yourself into a very strange corner.

    Dave – Let’s not beat about the bush here, you’re contributing to those deaths. Has it occurred to you that given the stakes you might do better to keep quiet until you have something positive to offer?

    Nah.

  30. “Well actually, a lot of people do ridicule the Pope, and religious beliefs, and take a look at the battering Creationists get. I think people who believe in homeopathy, crystal healing and anal jetwashing deserve a thorough dose of ridicule.”

    Of course you do. And others think that transphobes and homophobes and racists do.

    But there’s a difference between ‘ridicule’ and ‘bullying’. I can smile along with the rest if somebody comes up with something genuinely witty or clever. I didn’t think this was.

    “Ronnie Barker dressed as a woman is funny in itself. Why? Juxtaposition and the reversal of expectations.”

    Laughter is an evolved social signal to demonstrate to others of your in-group that you recognise a particular behaviour as a (vaguely plausible) error – especially a social error. It encourages you to learn the rules and recommendations of society, and reinforces membership of the social group by the demonstration of common beliefs.

    “So, the claim that a man is a woman in a man’s body (note the “is”) isn’t of issue? Is that not the basic claim of the trans narrative?”

    There are a large number of features in both body and brain that are correlated mostly but not entirely into two clusters that we call “sexes”. There’s things like height, weight, muscle strength, hairiness, and bone structure, and about two dozen already-identified brain structure differences of unknown function.

    Everyone has a few features more common in the other sex, (short men, women good at maths) but it’s usually pretty clear from the majority which group they belong to. The claim is that there is some number of brain structures that constitute the ‘gender’ of the brain, and that somebody can have some or all of them ‘disagree’ with the selection of features the rest of their body has.

    It’s like finding a woman with hairy skin, or even a beard. It does happen. But it doesn’t mean she’s “not really a woman, because women don’t have beards”. Some, evidently, do. Same with people born with the wrong number of fingers. (What’s the “right” number?) So when people have a mixture of features that don’t match anyone else’s, how do you define what/who they are? Does the brain or the body rule?

    Most people are messed up in some way. There are maths geeks with no social skills, and thugs with muscles but no brains, people who stammer, are short-sighted, arachnophobic, or shy. They’re all “faults”, and people often wish they were otherwise. This sort of stuff can thoroughly mess their life up, to a greater or lesser degree, but most people get by. The gender-variant are messed up in the same sort of way: in that it’s “normal” to be messed up in some way, and this is just a different quirk to most people’s.

  31. Dave, I am loathe to use your “you don’t know what you’re talking about” line, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about. In a literal sense.

    Just copying and pasting a definition doesn’t qualify. What we’re doing here is looking at what the definition means. For instance, “gender identity”. What does that mean? It actually means the person’s belief as to what they are.

    It is a statement of belief of a fact. When I say that I believe I have two legs- I identify as being two-legged- it is a statement about reality. I can count my legs, other people can count my legs, and hopefully we would all agree that I am bipedal.

    But suppose I say that I identify as one-legged. What does that mean? It would mean that I am claiming as a matter of fact that I have only one leg. Which other people would then point out is a wrong statement.

  32. NiV

    You missed my point. Sexed behaviours are not the same as the knowledge of sex. Many women have stereotypically masculine behaviours, and men have stereotypically female behaviours. These are, as you say, just clustered biases. They do not define your sex. You can be a tomboyish woman or an effeminate man. You’re still male or female.

    The trans claim is that the person knows that they are the opposite sex to their observed (by themself) one; that they are a female in a male body, or vice versa. This is not behaviour. It is not saying “I am girly” or “I am butch”. It is a claim to a matter of fact. And particularly it is a claim that the person has this knowledge hard-wired.

    Not “I act female” or “I like acting female” but I AM female. And that everyone else must agree with this as a statement of fact too (under the SJW dogma, to not do so is discrimination and bigotry).

    Knowledge, not behaviours. Key point.

  33. “Anyway, regarding the actual case. Having cared for my terminally ill mother who begged me to end her life, I think we should be very reluctant to judge it murder. The suffering of the terminally ill can often be horrendous, particularly psychologically. Animals get put out of their misery. Humans are forced to live in pain and distress. It’s a big issue.”

    I agree.

    I didn’t bring it up in this case because it wasn’t clear whether the father did – apparently he didn’t say anything to any of his other carers. I’d consider it unproven. But in cases where they do, I’d say there’s a strong case for allowing it.

    “When you find yourself quoting John Stuart Mill to justify men chopping their own dicks off, you’ve intellectualised yourself into a very strange corner.”

    I seem to remember the Church used to argue that allowing men to damn themselves to eternal hellfire by touching their own dicks was making the same sort of justification. It’s not all that strange.

    Whose dick is it anyway?

  34. “Let’s not beat about the bush here, you’re contributing to those deaths.”

    Oh dear.

    Steve, stop it, now – you merchant of death…

    Diogenes

    I don’t know – the post count is ticking along quite nicely…;)

    Seriously, if nothing else, I’m learning something from listening to these guys.

  35. Ian>

    You’re focussing on the wrong part of that definition. The important bit is, as I highlighted (or attempted to), the ‘typically associated’. It’s a problem with our society, not with individuals.

    “For instance, “gender identity”. What does that mean? It actually means the person’s belief as to what they are.”

    No, no, absolutely not. It’s about how they relate to societal expectations in that context. As the phrase ‘gender identity’ in fact makes clear, once you substitute a definition of gender for the word ‘gender’.

    “I can count my legs, other people can count my legs, and hopefully we would all agree that I am bipedal.”

    I don’t think you have a leg to stand on here. Which is the whole point, of course: it’s about how people deal with society’s views of them and how they should be/behave.

  36. “The trans claim is that the person knows that they are the opposite sex to their observed (by themself) one; that they are a female in a male body, or vice versa.”

    It’s a matter of definition – what constitutes the self? Is it the mind, or the body?

    If I play Tomb Raider, my “body” in the game is clearly very, very female. But am “I” my game-body, or am “I” the mind controlling it?

    Some people would check out Lara Croft’s crotch area, and declare me unambiguously and unarguably female. No dick, you see?

    Who decides? And who gets to decide for everyone else?

  37. PF>

    In our society we bend over backwards to avoid doing that kind of thing, for the most part, so it’s worth pointing out when people don’t. It’s rather a stretch to go from that to ‘merchant of death’. Steve’s more a casual Ebay seller than a retailer, let alone a wholesaler.

  38. Dave,

    Having a penis or vagina is not socially constructed. It’s biology. Like I keep saying, it’s nothing to do with behaviour, but with the state of being. It’s not “I want to act like a girl as socially constructed” but “I believe I am a girl”.

    Look, I am a man. I also have long hair, cry at sentimental movies and love kittens. These are all (arguably) socially constructed as female. As would be wanting to wear a pink skirt. But none of these are the issue here. It is the claim that the person IS a female, despite being observably male, or vice versa.

    Hence why it’s an issue now that SJWs have turned it into a crusade.

  39. NiV, I hate to break this to you but when you’re playing Tomb Raider you aren’t actually Lara Croft. It’s not real. Any more than I am actually Labooba, my avatar in Scarlet Blade. And no amount of wishing I was a virtually naked busty Punisher on the post-apocalyptic Earth will make me such a thing.

    Although- one thing that fascinated me about playing that game, whose players were (I would guess) about 80%+ male (there were some female, but it’s always hard to tell the truth of course) was how strongly I noticed these male players identifying with their female avatars. Which if anything demonstrates that people normally identify with what they observe themselves to be, and the video game confuses a brain that evolved without virtual realities to play in.

    The basic point I keep making here being that people “identify” as something by observing what they are. It’s not pre-wired into the brain.

  40. “Having a penis or vagina is not socially constructed. It’s biology.”

    And no trans person is at all deluded about which they’ve got – it’s one of their main complaints, usually. The disagreement is over whether this ‘defines’ their gender.

    “Look, I am a man. I also have long hair, cry at sentimental movies and love kittens.”

    Not a *real* man… at least, not if you confessed any of that to the school bullies.

    “It is the claim that the person IS a female, despite being observably male, or vice versa.”

    They (sometimes) claim to have a female mind in a male body. There’s no dispute over the state of the body. But how do you ‘observe’ their mind?

  41. You don’t observe the mind. The mind observes. That’s my point. The brain observes what the self is; I am a male, my hair is brown, my skin is white, I have a male body. That is what I am.

    And the whole point here is that manliness (short hand “you are not a man”) is not the same as male as a state of being. No school bully actually believes that the weed they are bullying is actually a girl.

    And continuing in reverse order of answer, the whole point of trans wanting to surgically alter what they are is what brings us back to sex as an observed fact. Why aren’t they happy to be a woman with a penis, if the biology is not gender as you and Dave claim?

  42. “NiV, I hate to break this to you but when you’re playing Tomb Raider you aren’t actually Lara Croft. It’s not real.”

    That’s an interesting philosophical point. The electrons in a computer are certainly ‘real’, and the mental model we build to interpret them is no more ‘unreal’ than the models we build to interpret the quantum reality around us. But that’s a different topic.

    “Although- one thing that fascinated me about playing that game, whose players were (I would guess) about 80%+ male (there were some female, but it’s always hard to tell the truth of course) was how strongly I noticed these male players identifying with their female avatars. Which if anything demonstrates that people normally identify with what they observe themselves to be, and the video game confuses a brain that evolved without virtual realities to play in.”

    Or that they picked female avatars so that they could. Wheels within wheels within wheels…

    “The basic point I keep making here being that people “identify” as something by observing what they are. It’s not pre-wired into the brain.”

    And the point I keep making is that it’s more complicated than that. A lot of stuff is pre-wired, but in a very general way. It’s like the difference between grammar and vocabulary – we’re all pre-wired to develop language, and a lot of the general rules of grammar are also hard-coded, but the details of vocabulary are undetermined and learnt.

    That women wear skirts and men wear trousers is obviously learnt behaviour – not genetic. But if you bring up a boy in skirts, they don’t become a woman, mentally. And they’ll switch to trousers and chasing girls as soon as they get free.

    Gender is not socially constructed. That’s a feminist theory. In fact, it should be obvious from the very existence of transgender people: – despite the undeniable evidence of their body, all the social pressures and the virtually universal example set by society, they somehow “observe” the opposite of what your theory says they should. If it’s not inbuilt, where do they get it from?

  43. “You don’t observe the mind. The mind observes.”

    I was referring to other people’s minds.

    But to take your point, what is a person observing when they say “I’m shy”? Do they mean they have a shy body?

    “No school bully actually believes that the weed they are bullying is actually a girl.”

    There are many layers to this – they mean that they’re “socially” a girl, in that they conform to the cluster of behaviours associated with girls.

    “Why aren’t they happy to be a woman with a penis, if the biology is not gender as you and Dave claim?”

    For the same reason that a person born with no legs will refuse to accept that they are “actually” a legless person – believing instead that they’re a normal person inside whose external body is deformed – and ask for artificial legs.

    Although, having said that, some are.

  44. ” If it’s not inbuilt, where do they get it from?”

    The realms of mental illness.

    I don’t give a shit about what some yo-ho wants to call hisself or how he dresses.

    But he is not going in the ladies bogs or woman’s prison with his dick still attached

    And no leftist scum is going to tell me what is real or not.

    Tho the world end and WW3+ the total destruction of humanity and the entire Earth be the result–the evidence of eyes and reason will not be countermanded by socialist cant.

    And to hear talk of “compassion” from those who have brought about the murder of 150 million and the ruination in all ways of millions more is nauseating to the max.

  45. “And to hear talk of “compassion” from those who have brought about the murder of 150 million and the ruination in all ways of millions more is nauseating to the max.”

    So why help them, by proving to the world that they’re right about your lack of compassion?

    Like I said to start with, they keep doing this. They pick a sympathy-inspiring group to support, knowing that conservatives will kick up about them, and they can portray the right as intolerant racist greedy uncaring bunny-killing homophobic misogynist bigots. And you keep falling for it.

    How many more millions have to die before you figure it out?

  46. NiV, you’re still confusing behaviours and knowledge. I can’t think of another way to put what I’ve said several times already.

    Regarding, “I am shy”, that’s just a quirk of English. It’s shorthand for “I have learned that I act in a shy way”. Some words are used in ways that don’t mean what they apparently mean, for instance “This is my school” isn’t a claim to ownership of the school, despite “my” being possessive. And so on.

    It still comes back to when a person describes themself as shy, this is something they have learned about themself, as with what sex they are. It’s not knowledge they are born with, let alone it being possible to be an extrovert in an introvert’s body, or something.

    A person with no legs generally recognises that they are a legless person and identifies as such. They also know that other people normally have two legs, and they probably wish they had too, but they don’t believe they actually have two legs. And nobody is born knowing how many legs they have, or what legs are. These are learned from observation. A person born into an entirely legless community, without any legged people at all, and not told about legs, would have no idea they were missing anything.

  47. “It’s shorthand for “I have learned that I act in a shy way”.”

    So “I am female” is just shorthand for “I have learned that I act in a female way”, yes?

    “A person with no legs generally recognises that they are a legless person and identifies as such. They also know that other people normally have two legs, and they probably wish they had too, but they don’t believe they actually have two legs.”

    Yes. And a transgender person recognises that they have a dick/fanny and identifies as such. They also know that other people normally have a fanny/dick, and they probably wish they had too, but they don’t believe they actually have them yet.

  48. So “I am female” is just shorthand for “I have learned that I act in a female way”, yes?

    It’s shorthand for “I have learned that I have the physical nature of being the sex known as female”. In the same way as “that is a chair” is identifying something as having the characteristics of being a chair.

    Which means you can’t “be” a female without having those characteristics. So then the claim is that this one item of knowledge is hardwired; which as I have pointed out is extremely unlikely, because no other knowledge is.

    Knowledge of things (what we are talking about) is forming mental symbols which represent them. Actual definitions are always problematic (what makes a chair a chair) which has puzzled philosophers back to Plato. But nonetheless, once you’ve agreed that there are chairs and tables, you can identify them as chairs and tables. You can’t claim that something with the characteristics of a chair has the essence of a table. It’s a misidentification.

    In fact, this seems to be partially rooted in Plato’s same mistake, that there is some “essence” of a thing which is separate from what it is, but that defines it. Which we know is wrong. (Although the more recent erroneous philosophical school in play here is Critical Theory, which views reality as a “text” that can be deconstructed. It’s actually just sophistry. Though not neoliberal sophistry.

    There aren’t any essences. You am what you am and that’s all you am.

  49. PF, Dave – I see myself as more of an independent trader of death. I must get a Reliant Regal van. This time next year, we’ll be millionaires.

    NiV – You’re manfully (sorry) fighting your corner. But, mate, your corner in this debate is technically part of North Crazytown, Bat Country.

    Men can’t be women. That’s not how any of this works. And snipping one’s own willy off is not a libertarian virtue.

    As a wise philosopher once said:

    “And if dreams were eagles I would fly. But they ain’t, and that’s the reason why.”

  50. “Which means you can’t “be” a female without having those characteristics.”

    But you’ve just explained that the characteristics are *behaviours*. So if you have the behaviours of a female, you are – behaviourally – female. Just as a tree stump serving as a chair is – functionally – a chair.

    “Actual definitions are always problematic (what makes a chair a chair) which has puzzled philosophers back to Plato.”

    Yes. Exactly.

    “But nonetheless, once you’ve agreed that there are chairs and tables, you can identify them as chairs and tables.”

    But we *haven’t* agreed on a definition. One side defines it in terms of externally visible characteristics. The other defines it in terms of mental/behavioural ones.

    There is no “absolute” meaning to language – words mean what we commonly agree them to mean. And a lot of people subscribe to the mental definition amongst themselves.

    But to try to get round the problem, some people have tried to introduce more precise language. That’s where you get all the weird sex/gender terminology from. If you want to insist on the technical terms assigned-male, genitally-male, gender-female, etc. nobody would be able to argue.

    Bu simply shouting “I’m right and you’re wrong” about commonly-used terms more loudly doesn’t get you anywhere – it just makes you look like an authoritarian trying to insist on your own newspeak.

  51. “NiV – You’re manfully (sorry) fighting your corner. But, mate, your corner in this debate is technically part of North Crazytown, Bat Country.”

    In your opinion.

    But in the opinion of the rest of society (as judged by the way the legislation is moving), it’s you that’s living in an extremely unpleasant part of bat country. And the SJWs are using your reaction to paint the right-wing as intolerant and ignorant bigots, and arguing that suppressing your Crazytown views justifies a loss of liberty. They’re winning the argument, too.

    “And snipping one’s own willy off is not a libertarian virtue.”

    “In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

    When you find yourself arguing against the libertarian Harm Principle, maybe it’s time to reconsider?

  52. NiV – in the opinion of the rest of society (as judged by the way the legislation is moving)

    A dodgy assumption to make, given what we know about modern poly ticks.

    it’s you that’s living in an extremely unpleasant part of bat country

    Eh. Shrewsbury isn’t that bad. At least it’s not Liverpool.

    And the SJWs are using your reaction to paint the right-wing as intolerant and ignorant bigots, and arguing that suppressing your Crazytown views justifies a loss of liberty.

    Oh noes. Guess I’d better apologise and surrender to the SJW’s then, so they don’t win. Oh. Wait…

    When you find yourself arguing against the libertarian Harm Principle, maybe it’s time to reconsider?

    OTOH, mental illness is not a political principle.

  53. “Oh noes. Guess I’d better apologise and surrender to the SJW’s then, so they don’t win. Oh. Wait…”

    Fighting the SJWs is fine. Fighting the transgender under the incorrect impression that they’re SJWs is what gets you into trouble.

    “OTOH, mental illness is not a political principle.”

    It was in the Soviet Union. They defined ‘being right-wing’ as a mental illness. It’s not a good tactic to revive.

  54. NiV – “In your opinion. But in the opinion of the rest of society (as judged by the way the legislation is moving), it’s you that’s living in an extremely unpleasant part of bat country.”

    Legislation is an extremely poor judge of public opinion. Which is firmly on Steve’s side.

    “And the SJWs are using your reaction to paint the right-wing as intolerant and ignorant bigots, and arguing that suppressing your Crazytown views justifies a loss of liberty. They’re winning the argument, too.”

    Well thank you for your concern trolling. But I don’t think for us to appease SJWs like you is the solution. You can paint us as you like.

    “When you find yourself arguing against the libertarian Harm Principle, maybe it’s time to reconsider?”

    If someone wants to cut off their tackle, a case could be made that it is their right. But they do not have a right to force us all to endorse their insanity. Trans people are mentally ill. This man is not a woman. And nothing will change that.

  55. “Legislation is an extremely poor judge of public opinion. Which is firmly on Steve’s side.”

    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-11-national-surveyshows-rights-transgender-people.html

    They’re not stupid. They’re not going to pick an unpopular cause.

    “Well thank you for your concern trolling. But I don’t think for us to appease SJWs like you is the solution. You can paint us as you like.”

    I don’t think it’s right to give in to SJWs like you, either.

    The rules against variant sexuality are just the hold-over from the ‘SJWs’ who lived three thousand years ago, and made up their own set of intolerant edicts, and enforced them sometimes with excessive brutality. Religions are simply Moral Justice Warriors policing their neighbours’ behaviour, and whose beliefs are not quite dead yet.

    ” But they do not have a right to force us all to endorse their insanity. Trans people are mentally ill. This man is not a woman. And nothing will change that.”

    Sure. You’re entitled to your opinion. But nobody else has to endorse your insanity, either. SJWs can define homophobia as a mental illness, or the new face of Nazism or whatever, and discredit your views by calling you names too. Just as they can’t stop you bullying other people, you can’t stop them bullying you (and your employers). And they will.

    Like I said, you fall for it every time. They’ll win yet another round of the culture war, and it’ll be your own stupid fault.

    But I’m done arguing about it.

  56. NiV–Outside of whatever CM nonsense fills your head the mass of the UK don’t give a rat’s arse for the mentally confused. Middle-class Marxist sludge may be all broken up over this crap but the idea that there is some vast groundswell of support for the subjective nuttiness of wannabe dick-choppers is –to use an Americanism most apt–wack.

    As is your ludicrous notion that saying in true Orwellian style “two plus two equals four” amounts to a spine-chilling mind-numbing lack of compassion.

    No one on this blog–I venture to surmise–has beaten up any gender-confused individuals lately. Or advocated that they be jailed or executed for their desire to change their names and cross-dress and make fantasy pronouncements in public.

    But we aren’t endorsing their bullshit either. And if that equals hatred in the mental prisons of SJW pricks–tough shit.

    And what exactly are the terms of this compassion you are so full of NiV? Males to use women’s toilets? And putting the fear of God in lots of women and providing a chance for scummy males to knock themselves out raping and assaulting women who are foolish enough to try and powder their nose is alright with you is it? Rather than upset a very few troubled types and a load of squawking leftist scum.
    Again to paraphrase Tarantino–if enough Marxist semen goes up your arse some of it will reach your brains.

  57. IanB: “Although- one thing that fascinated me about playing that game, whose players were (I would guess) about 80%+ male (there were some female, but it’s always hard to tell the truth of course) was how strongly I noticed these male players identifying with their female avatars. Which if anything demonstrates that people normally identify with what they observe themselves to be, and the video game confuses a brain that evolved without virtual realities to play in.”

    I once asked my brother, when we both played ‘World of Warcraft’, why he played mainly female characters (having started out with male). He said he figured out if he was going to play a third person game, he might as well look at a pretty bum while doing it.

    I guess it’s the video gaming equivalent of ‘Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar…’

  58. Dave: “The simple fact is that those of us without some kind of problem in that regard will (because we’re English and as a matter of basic politeness) call anyone saying ‘call me a taxi’ a taxi, whether or not they’re actually black and cablike.”

    Isn’t this basically the same argument DevonChap was trying to advance the other day regarding the term ‘Master’..?

  59. Steve: “Oh noes. Guess I’d better apologise and surrender to the SJW’s then, so they don’t win. Oh. Wait…”

    Spot on! This is what we were expected to do over the ‘Master’ argument too, isn’t it?

  60. Mr Ecks: Has there ever been a case of a transgender person committing a sexual assault in a toilet of their preferred gender? Even once?

  61. Dumb point Matthew.

    It doesn’t have to be a transsexual who does the assaulting.

    If you can drag up and go in the Ladies because you “identify as female” then there are plenty of non-trannies who will be happy to make use of that.

    Remember the case of the ordinary crim with a girlfriend who said he was a leser trapped in a man’s body and got put in a women’s jail and knocked up several of the inmates–with us mugs paying his family bills?

  62. Is there a problem using male and female to describe both sex and gender? Can any linguists help?

  63. Changing the subject, did smfs or IanB marry a woman because of a resemblance to the girl’s father?

  64. Got your dick stuck in the barrel’s bunghole again Diogenes?

    Not the first time the coppers have warned you about that.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.