Umm, yeah

The summer before my junior year of high school, I came out as transgender. I’d been raised a girl, but knew that I was really a boy, and it was time to transition. What I didn’t know is that the person I’d always called “Dad” was about to transition too. The same year I came out as Alexander, “Dad” came out as Mom.

Well, I guess so. But I’m terribly minded to think of Rule 34 here. Some of these pieces read like something from Penthouse letters. Certainly some of the Salon pieces do at times.

Not as in porn porn, you understand, but stories that people are willing to suspend disbelief to read for the kicks of doing so.

The kidnapped teenager forced to have sex with 2,000 men a year, this sort of thing. After all, everyone knows that sex slavery is a real thing, right? And so here’s a story that panders to that prejudice. It’s like the Mail talking about house prices.

Yes, yes, I’m far too cynical and could well not be true about this particular story. But, you know…..

131 comments on “Umm, yeah

  1. It is supermarket check out type crap.

    “She was raped by her Grandfather in her Wedding Dress” was the most memorable headline at the local Morrisons checkout.

    From the cover photo Gramps looked way too fat to fit in her wedding dress but I suppose anything is possible.

  2. The obsession continues, I see.This blog is pretty much the only place I ever see anything about anyone transgender.

  3. Well, it’s known that transgenderism is at least partly genetic, so that part isn’t a big surprise. However, the genetic links understood so far would indicate more surprise at a MtF and FtM arising from the same genetic cause.

    MtF transgenderism has been linked to a longer version of the gene for the NR3C4 androgen receptor protein. While FtM transgenderism was linked with a variant of the CYP17 gene, which produces the enzyme CYP17A1 that acts on the sex hormones pregnenolone and progesterone. They’re completely different mechanisms.

    So based on current knowledge, it wouldn’t necessarily be expected, but on the other hand there’s a lot we don’t know about the biology, so there may well be other biological causes of transgenderism that could cause both.

    And of course it could be coincidence – if about 1% of the population is transgender (as statistical estimates indicate), then about one in 10,000 randomly selected pairs would be. I’d guess the Vox readership is more than 10,000? And maybe transgender readers are statistically more likely to read Vox than Breitbart?

    And of course it might be connected by social effects. It’s thought that about 90% of those with dyphoria don’t come out, because of fears of rejection by family and friends. If someone sees a family member coming out and being accepted, that might lead to them making the move themselves.

    But you’re right to be cynical. I’ve seen a surprising number of articles on the subject in the media over the last couple of years. I think there’s a campaign on to make the public more familiar with transgenderism, and so reduce the fear, incomprehension, and discrimination surrounding the issue. They’re obviously looking out for articles on the subject they can use, and where there’s a demand the supply will rise to fill it.

  4. NiV: “I think there’s a campaign on to make the public more familiar with transgenderism…”

    They clearly aren’t reaching Dave.

  5. “They clearly aren’t reaching Dave.”

    It’s at a fairly low level elsewhere, but noticeable if you’re looking – don’t want to “scare the natives”, no doubt. It’s a lot more noticeable here. I think I’ve mentioned it before, myself.

    I’m beginning to wonder if Tim is actually making his own more subtle contribution to the campaign. Eventually people get outrage fatigue and stop caring about the issue?

    I’d still say it’s more likely it’s economic – just meeting the evident demand for opportunities to debate it. But it is a bit odd.

  6. NiV–No.

    As ever the “evidence” isn’t up to much. It is micro-sample science-babble that suits your SJW bias but proof it isn’t.

    No one knows the true causes at this time–and even if it was genetic so what? It would be genetic illness rather than a purely mental illness. It still doesn’t make men into women or vice versa. And claims that how someone feels determine reality–Marxian style–still don’t stand. You are not a wo/man just because you feel and/or declare you are–be the origin of that claim a disordered mind or disordered genes.

  7. “As ever the “evidence” isn’t up to much. It is micro-sample science-babble that suits your SJW bias but proof it isn’t.”

    You’re claiming that the sample size isn’t large enough to show a significant effect? OK. Show me your maths.

  8. NiV–The outrage is not about the problems of the mentally troubled. It is that Marxian SJW scum are using the plight of these people to promote Marxian subjectivist evil. Esp when–as with women/gays –the SJW scum could not give a shite about these people. Who are just cannon fodder for the CM cause and–as the lefts love of RoP imports shows –will be thrown under a bus as soon as a better opportunity to harm Western society comes along.

  9. NiV: “You’re claiming that the sample size isn’t large enough to show a significant effect? OK.”

    You didn’t name the study. Plus before maths:

    “MtF transgenderism has been linked to a longer version of the gene for the NR3C4 androgen receptor protein. While FtM transgenderism was linked with a variant of the CYP17 gene, which produces the enzyme CYP17A1 that acts on the sex hormones pregnenolone and progesterone. They’re completely different mechanisms.”

    The article will presumably define “transgenderism ” and what “linked” means? Linked how? There was another brouhaha about breast cancer genes a while back–but most women with breast cancer don’t have the gene named. So what does linked mean.

    And –as I already said –so what anyway? Mental disorder of interpersonal /intra-psychic or genetic origin–it still does not alter the fact that feels/declarations do not govern reality.

    There seem to be only a limited number of possibilities here. You are either such a bleeding heart that you simply ignore the utterly destructive consequences of the assistance you are giving Marxian evil. Or you are an active supporter of that cause hoping to use crocodile tears for an afflicted group to further said cause.

  10. “Show your maths”

    You show any actual correlation to do maths about.

    Do ALL or most even MOST of the troubled have these genes? The Climate Change gang have maths coming out of their arses. Proves nothing but sounds “science-y” for the hard of thinking.

  11. Bickering about the amount of actual transgenderists aside, I think Tim’s actual point is of interest- Salon et al pander to the base urges of their readership.

    That sounds fair to me but doesn’t this also fulfil the definition of Fake news that Salon et al are so worked up about?

    (Personally, I think the trans thing is a form of mass hysteria, but there you go)

  12. “You didn’t name the study.”

    So how in the seven hells did you manage to tell that: “As ever the “evidence” isn’t up to much. It is micro-sample science-babble that suits your SJW bias but proof it isn’t.” ?!

    You figured out that the sample size was too small without even seeing knowing what study it was?! That’s clever! I’d like to know how you did that!

    I think we all know the answer to that one.

    And that’s the problem with the ‘Mr Angry’ approach. Neutral bystanders will observe such antics and be repulsed, and will turn to the Marxists as the more reasonable option because of it. The Marxists claim that right-wingers are bigots who have since the days of Moses persecuted transgender people, and are now annoyed that they’re not being allowed to any more. They use any evidence they can find of it to justify their authoritarian restrictions on free speech. If you don’t want to hand it to them, then you have to be careful when making claims about the science that you can back them up. Or those neutral observers will look at the Marxists who can cite the science, and their opponents who are obviously just making any old shit up to try to prop up their invalid, out-dated, traditional beliefs, and come to the obvious conclusion. The Marxists must be right.

    It takes more than guts and enthusiasm to fight a war. It takes skill and better weaponry, and the sense not to try to defend weak positions.

  13. If certain male social-construct units should discover they are male lesbian social-construct units, do they violate the safe spaces of any female social-construct units by hitting on them?

  14. “Pretty sure your genes didn’t evolve to make you want to sterilise yourself.”

    It’s a sensible point, but the same can be said of any other genetic disease. Nature commonly falls short of perfection.

  15. There’s no point debating this with Ecksy – he’s literally the last person on earth who’s going to realise his rant is just the green-eyed monster talking.

    “Pretty sure your genes didn’t evolve to make you want to sterilise yourself.”

    And yet there’s no question that many people feel like they want to kill themselves. We have all kinds of odd genetic quirks – people rather misunderstand how natural selection works when it only decreases the chances of a gene being passed on.

  16. All this TransGender stuff is a corporate ploy to reduce the floorspace required by the bathroom facilities.

    A set of seven stalls with six communal hand basins and two dryers takes up less physical space than two separate areas with six stalls, three urinals, five basins and three hand dryers.

    Follow the money.

  17. From this article (from 2010) :
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7613567/Number-of-NHS-sex-change-operations-triples.html

    “Since 2000 a total of 853 men have gone under the knife to become women while in the same time span 12 women have had an operation to become a man.
    Back in 2000 there were just 54 sex change operations carried out in the country while last year the figure stood at 143.
    The average age for a man having a sex change operation is 42 with only one procedure in the last nine years being carried out on somebody under 21.”

    865 operations in total, assuming NiV’s 90% number is reasonable, then about 9,000 people, over a ten year period, have gender dysphoria.

    UK population is on the order of 65,000,000, so that’s about 0.00015%.

    Given the length of human DNA, what population size would allow for completely random mutations to become countable, given a certain level of technology?

  18. There’s no doubt there are some social, and probably legal, issues that need addressing when it comes to transgender and I for one have some sympathy with those who are caught up in them.

    The those aren’t the stories that tend to get picked up by Tim, he picks the ones about publicity seeking drama queens, who often seem to have their issues rather than being genuinely transgender, or those being used in the culture wars. Nobody here, that I remember, has ever had a go at Deidre McCloskey who talks about the subject matter of factly and occasionally with dry humour.

  19. “There’s no point debating this with Ecksy – he’s literally the last person on earth who’s going to realise his rant is just the green-eyed monster talking.”

    In a sense, I’m actually talking to everyone else watching us discuss it. Having someone there to reliably raise all the objections and counter-arguments is handy. It’s how science is supposed to work.

    Have you ever read Mill’s essay “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion”? There’s lots of excellent stuff in there, and it’s well worth everyone reading, but the bit I was thinking of is the following:

    The cessation, on one question after another, of serious controversy, is one of the necessary incidents of the consolidation of opinion; a consolidation as salutary in the case of true opinions, as it is dangerous and noxious when the opinions are erroneous. But though this gradual narrowing of the bounds of diversity of opinion is necessary in both senses of the term, being at once inevitable and indispensable, we are not therefore obliged to conclude that all its consequences must be beneficial. The loss of so important an aid to the intelligent and living apprehension of a truth, as is afforded by the necessity of explaining it to, or defending it against, opponents, though not sufficient to outweigh, is no trifling drawback from, the benefit of its universal recognition. Where this advantage can no longer be had, I confess I should like to see the teachers of mankind endeavouring to provide a substitute for it; some contrivance for making the difficulties of the question as present to the learner’s consciousness, as if they were pressed upon him by a dissentient champion, eager for his conversion.

    I’ve got no problem with Ecksie holding his opinions, and challenging the social consensus on it. He’s wrong, but it’s up to the rest of us to provide the evidence for it, and I think open debate on such topics is healthy. I just think it’s a tactical error for him to play into the SJW’s stereotypes of the angry intolerant borderline-violent bigot – it allows them too easily to justify their attempts to eliminate debate/dissent.

    Actually, to be fair he’s been doing a lot better recently. Much more of the ire is directed against the SJWs themselves rather than their stalking horses. We’re not quite there yet, though.

  20. Dave -You left the Jews out of it . Obviously an oversight.

    BTW what happened to DaveDave? A massive meds change affecting you? Or maybe you were poisoned by anti-semites upset at your pioneering paranoia into new areas.

    You harp on “science” and “maths” NiV–to prove what ? That feels/declares equals reality?. No sample size can prove that. And a sample of what? No self selected sample can prove much without reference to the larger population. Millions might have the same genes with zero effect.

    You flourish your trappings-of-scientistic-investigation trope in the manner of some latter-day toothless Torquemada squealing “Blashphemer”.

  21. NiV, Dave – granted, I’m not a rocket surgeon. But if transsexualism is a genetic disorder rather than a biochemical or psychological one, we wouldn’t expect to see it increase in prevalence over time.

    My pet theory is toxic modern culture and/or literal toxicity in the environment.

  22. It’s really ironic that Ecksy is actually the one claiming his feelings trump the observable reality. Science has proved that there is more than just ‘feelings’ underlying this issue. Ecksy denies this because it runs contrary to what he feels must be true.

  23. Steve>

    Disorder, genetic, who knows. Doesn’t really matter in this regard. We’d expect to see a rise in reported cases at this stage given the rise in awareness, whether it’s mass hysteria or real.

    Do bear in mind that there is a long history of the acceptance of trans/gender-indeterminate people in other parts of the world. Hardly definitive proof that we’ve been suppressing ours until now, but that, combined with the rise, is certainly consistent with that theory.

  24. There is no science backing the claim that feels equals truth Dave. That there may be some reason that troubled people feel troubled is largely irrelevant. Your endless tripe about anti-Jewish conspiracies marks you as a deeply troubled loon. But your belief in dodgy evidence doesn’t make you right. There maybe some problem with trans genes that causes them to feel/think in a disordered manner. That does not prove that they are anything other than they are. It provides no ground to help Marxian liars. As much as it seems you would like to.

  25. NiV,

    whilst there are a definite minority of persons who have genuine gender issues I believe that there is a much larger cohort of individuals who have NPD and manifest as gender dysphoria as that is the issue of the day that gets them the most attention.

  26. “But if transsexualism is a genetic disorder rather than a biochemical or psychological one, we wouldn’t expect to see it increase in prevalence over time.”

    No, but you would if it was a condition that had strong social taboos against it (often backed by violence) that only recently are changing.

    They were always there, but they were previously too scared to come out because of what the bullies would do to them if they did.


    Further surveys:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/health/transgender-population.html

    http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/news/2014/august-2014/06/4-in-100-secondary-students-say-they-are-transgender-or-not-sure-survey.aspx

  27. TIS

    ‘we wouldn’t expect to see it increase in prevalence over time.’

    we would actually as a by product of reduced child mortality.

    This doesn’t invalidate your pet theory (and may substantiate it)

  28. “whilst there are a definite minority of persons who have genuine gender issues I believe that there is a much larger cohort of individuals who have NPD and manifest as gender dysphoria as that is the issue of the day that gets them the most attention.”

    But as I just said, the vast majority of them do everything they can to avoid attention.

    You may be right about the most vocal activists and media hounds, but they’re as unusual in the trans community as radical fire-breathing castrate-’em-all feminists are among women.

  29. NiV>

    Don’t fall into the trap of believing the people who tag themselves ‘radical feminists’ while holding the views you mention are radical feminists at all. Radical feminism is actually the feminism of JSM, Bentham, etc. They simply display their ignorance of the history of feminism when they misuse that tag.

  30. I’ve contacted Vox to see if they’d be interested in doing a piece on my traumatic childhood.

    By the time I was 13 I’d come to the realization I was a 7′ tall African-American with a deadly hook shot trapped in the body of a 5’2″ white kid who couldn’t shoot a basketball worth a shit. As a measure of just how dysfunctional my family was, nobody seemed to care.

    Now I’m 60, stand all of 5’6″, still can’t shoot a basketball, and never even got a try-out from the NBA.

    Goddamn ‘Merica.

  31. Ecksy>

    You keep asserting that what you feel is true is actually true. Do you have any evidence, though?

  32. “I’ve got no problem with Ecksie holding his opinions and challenging the social consensus on it.,”

    That’s mighty white of you NiV.

    “He’s wrong,”

    Sez you –and all the dodgy studies you can dig up. And as for samples –tell ’em to take a massive sample across everybody next time and see who has what genes.

    “but it’s up to the rest of us to provide the evidence for it,”

    Well pseudo-evidence is a start.

    “and I think open debate on such topics is healthy. I just think it’s a tactical error for him to play into the SJW’s stereotypes of the angry intolerant borderline-violent bigot – it allows them too easily to justify their attempts to eliminate debate/dissent.”

    You keep peddling this crap. As if pussy-footing around the scum of the Earth were a viable tactic instead of smashing the socialist bastards flat enough to slide under a door . This is part of your essential weakness, like the “friendly persuasion with Jihadis” crap.

    “Actually, to be fair he’s been doing a lot better recently. Much more of the ire is directed against the SJWs themselves rather than their stalking horses.”

    It never was directed against the useful idiots –apart from not letting those with dicks still attached go into Ladies toilets. It may have seemed otherwise because I keep challenging your foolish acceptance of SJW lies which–whatever your intent–endorses and strengthens their situation while claiming some kind of philosophical opposition to them. Such nuance will not even appear as small print on the back page in terms of beating them and their evil cause.

  33. NiV,

    ‘But as I just said, the vast majority of them do everything they can to avoid attention.’

    so why are we all of a sudden dragging them out into the open ?

    Why is it an issue now ?

    Mr Ecks has a point, this is a minority issue and the majority of that minority just want to be left alone to do their thing in private but a load of SJWs have jumped on a bandwagon to further their own (SJW) agenda, if it wasn’t Trans it would be something else (Green was so last year)

  34. “You keep asserting that what you feel is true is actually true. Do you have any evidence, though?”

    What I keep saying, Dave ,is that saying you are the opposite sex does not make you the opposite sex any more than saying you are the Emperor Napoleon makes you the Emperor Napoleon.

    You are saying that you are the Emperor Napoleon then ?

    You know Dave–I believe you believe it alright.

  35. DtP>

    You do realise that your fantasy is entirely unlike the subject under discussion, right? Do you have the genes or hormones that go with that and which conflict with some status assigned to you by society?

    Taking your analogy and modifying it a bit, it’s as if society insisted you couldn’t play basketball because you were white, despite you being 7′ and good at basketball. (And arguably, like then deciding that the remedy for this situation is to give you plastic surgery to make you black.)

    Actually, that brings up another interesting point, which is the very small number of people with tg/ts-related problems who decide that they are so unhappy that gender surgery seems like a good option. I do wonder how many people are/would be satisfied simply to be accepted without having to pigeonhole themselves as wholly one thing or the other.

  36. Bobrocket>

    “Why is it an issue now ?”

    That was my question. Why are our host and many of his readers so obsessed with the subject? We have a post here about it almost daily, and it certainly doesn’t hit the main news even 1% as often.

    Ecksy>

    “What I keep saying, Dave ,is that saying you are the opposite sex does not make you the opposite sex any more than saying you are the Emperor Napoleon makes you the Emperor Napoleon.”

    Yes, we all agree you keep asserting things. Are you able to justify that assertion in any way, though? Or the assertion that your characterisation is accurate in any way?

  37. ‘You are saying that you are the Emperor Napoleon then ?’

    Oy, I’m the Emperor Napoleon and so is my wife.

  38. Dave,

    ‘That was my question. Why are our host and many of his readers so obsessed with the subject? We have a post here about it almost daily, and it certainly doesn’t hit the main news even 1% as often.’

    It is a repeated issue in the main stream press and commands a disproportionate amount of column inches, this suggests an unstated agenda which is certainly a subject for discussion.

  39. Again dodgy “science” presented as if it is absolute fact to bolster cultural Marxist cant.

    “Do you have the genes or hormones that go with that and which conflict with some status assigned to you by society?”

    Marginal evidence thrown out as fact. Without it even being clear that the “evidence” relates to the claims made. Legions of women with breast cancer don’t have the “breast cancer gene”‘

    “Taking your analogy and modifying it a bit, it’s as if society insisted you couldn’t play basketball because you were white, despite you being 7′ and good at basketball.”

    No one is saying that confused people can’t dress as whatever sex they are not nor lop off their dicks etc ( paying for it themselves of course).

    ” (And arguably, like then deciding that the remedy for this situation is to give you plastic surgery to make you black.)”

    Trans ops are thro choice so that is irrelevant.

    “Actually, that brings up another interesting point, which is the very small number of people with tg/ts-related problems who decide that they are so unhappy that gender surgery seems like a good option”

    tg/ts–PG fucking Tips–Neither you nor anybody else at this time have the slightest idea if that is what is going on with the troubled so drop the Professor routine.

    “. I do wonder how many people are/would be satisfied simply to be accepted without having to pigeonhole themselves as wholly one thing or the other.”

    A tiny minority likely unless it becomes trendy with the middle classes.

  40. “Yes, we all agree you keep asserting things. Are you able to justify that assertion in any way, though? Or the assertion that your characterisation is accurate in any way?”

    Well Napoleon you clearly have no answer to the argument. Any body else out there also L’Emperor or is it a straight fight between Dave and Bob.

  41. “Don’t fall into the trap of believing the people who tag themselves ‘radical feminists’ while holding the views you mention are radical feminists at all.”

    Agreed. That’s my point.

    “so why are we all of a sudden dragging them out into the open ?”

    We’re not. We’re trying to eliminate the reasons they hide.

    It’s like asking why most women in the 1900s didn’t go out to work, didn’t vote, and didn’t make a major public fuss about it. Most women were not suffragettes.

    It’s not that we should be *making* women go out to work, or cut their hair short or wear trousers. It’s that we’re asking that they not be treated as aberrant weirdos if they do. Now that the rules have changed and they have the choice, we find that some do, and some don’t, and that’s great.

    It’s probable that they had wanted to for a long time prior to that, but society’s rules didn’t allow it. It’s the old version of political correctness – you have to hold the right opinions or you’ll get punished. Authoritarians have always been with us – the SJWs are not a new phenomenon in that regard, they just enforce a different set of rules.

  42. NiV,

    society has never been tolerant (we are all bigots in our own way), there have always been some people who have attempted to power on the prejudices of others.

    My objection is that some people are using an obvious minority to crush opposition to their power grab
    (this minority has traditionally kept themselves to themselves and conveniently has no collective measures to refute this power grab).

    These people have no interest in the best outcome for the people they claim to fight for, these minorities are incidental to their cause which is power for its own sake for themselves.

  43. Lots of women worked NiV. Just not middle class women. And most women not after they were married because kids and a home were a full-time job in the age of copper boiler/washboard weekly wash etc, etc. Middle class women didn’t work much tho. Some might argue that many still don’t even tho they may have jobs.

    What sex you are is not a social convention. And working, wearing new style clothes does not require either sex mutilate itself or stand there and brazenly spit in reality’s eye by declaring so things that are not so.

    You can try and blur the edges with scientism NiV but that only provides–at best–some reason for the troubled to be troubled. If you have the body and can carry the sexes biological purpose to fruition.ie–father a child/carry a child to live birth –then that is the sex you are and how you feel about it is irrelevant.

    In 200 years perhaps they will be able to change sexes truly–right down to the cellular level. If so–then problem solved. Until that day–too bad because you are stuck with reality. You can pretend otherwise. But I will not join you in your delusion and nor will most others.

    Esp not once they understand the full extent of the evil hidden behind Marxian subjectivism. And how this cause is being used to push that agenda.

  44. BobRocket – we would actually as a by product of reduced child mortality.

    Yes, I wonder about that. We also pour huge resources into things like IVF – overturning nature’s judgement on the viability of people’s gametes.

    There’s bound to be a catch.

  45. Not everyone with gender dysphoria has sex reassignment surgery.

    Quite. Perhaps I should have written “9,000 people could be assumed to have some form of gender dysphoria to some degree”.

    Turns out the question i asked is related to Drake’s Rule*; mutation rate is inversely correlated with genome size.

    *First I’ve heard of it.

  46. Mr Ecks.

    you were going well then with the first two paragraphs, my mum played in front of > 54000 at Goodison (bigger crowd than Ronaldo ever played in front of at the same venue) and there were more than 60000 at Landsdowne Rd.

    She didn’t care what decoration they put on their bodies or what bits they cut off, only the quality of their character.

  47. “My objection is that some people are using an obvious minority to crush opposition to their power grab
    (this minority has traditionally kept themselves to themselves and conveniently has no collective measures to refute this power grab).”

    🙂

    Exactly the point I keep making!

    The Marxists have this technique in which they use some sympathy-inspiring group to justify their demands for power over society. They started off with the poor. They’ve done it with the disabled, blacks, gays, women, and now the transgender. In each case, they portray the right-wing as sexist, racist, homophobic bigots persecuting a vulnerable minority, so they need to institute restrictions on society to combat them. The minorities are grateful for the support, society sees the left as the “caring” side of every argument, and cite every example they can find of the right-wingers making sexist/racist/etc. statements to justify their claims, which neutral observers tend to be convinced by. Hence their success in the culture wars.

    The way to fight it is to make clear that those minorities best interests are actually served by right-wing policies, and right-wingers care too. But too many right-wingers can be predictably relied upon to attack not the Marxist authoritarians, but the minority group they’re hiding behind.

    That has precisely the opposite effect to the one intended – it convinces everyone that the Marxists are totally *right* about right-wingers. That’s why I keep arguing about it.

    If you don’t want the firebrand feminists to get away with making an accusation of rape an automatic conviction, then you don’t work to lose sympathy by saying anyone claiming rape must have been asking for it. Or saying that it’s because women are mentally deficient, and need a strong man to keep them at home and under control and out of trouble. Women, I think, have sympathy with the idea that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but they’re not going to say so if it means siding with obvious sexists.

    Aim at the right target. Don’t fall into the trap by attacking the bait.

  48. TiS,

    ‘There’s bound to be a catch.’

    Catches,
    boys are weaker than girls as infants (as a stereotype that rings true) which means a disproportionate number of weak boys get to live and (on average) procreate.

    Are weaker boys responsible for the growth in productivity ?

    Will Girly/Boys finally defeat global poverty ?

    Better ask Tim.

  49. You do realise that your fantasy is entirely unlike the subject under discussion, right?

    And do you realize how much the subject under discussion is a product of fantasy?

    Do you have the genes or hormones that go with that and which conflict with some status assigned to you by society?

    I have yet to hear any of the supportive types quizzing the transgender types as to whether they have the genes and hormones to support their choice.

  50. Bobrocket>

    “It is a repeated issue in the main stream press and commands a disproportionate amount of column inches”

    But… It just isn’t. It’s almost never in the news, at least not anywhere significant. Hence why our query our host’s highlighting of every single mention, however tangential to the piece it’s mentioned in.

  51. “Niv, Mr Ecks Do you want to see black painted as white or the other way round ?”

    No.

    “I have yet to hear any of the supportive types quizzing the transgender types as to whether they have the genes and hormones to support their choice.”

    I was discussing the genes and hormones above. So somebody has obviously asked the question. However, the science is still at an early enough stage that the best way to find out how someone’s brain is wired is still to ask them. But there’s sufficient evidence to conclude that it’s very likely down to genes and hormones in many if not all cases.

    It’s only people who are *determined* not to believe that still doubt. You don’t ask for an endorphin blood test before believing someone who says they’re “happy” or “sad” or “in love”. Nobody asks for brain scans before accepting that someone could be an “introvert” or “extrovert”, or that such categories even exist. Self-reporting is acceptable evidence of mental states and characteristics to anyone who doesn’t have personal reasons for objecting to their reality.

    Could I therefore ask – do you have any brain scan evidence to *prove* that you really *believe* what you say? If you don’t, can I therefore conclude you’re all just lying about it?

  52. “My objection is that some people are using an obvious minority to crush opposition to their power grab”

    Only some people? You’ve just described one of the fundamentals of politics.

    Every single politician is a lying piece of shit there solely to exploit others’ weaknesses for their own gain. The fact that people say all kinds of crazy things about all kinds of subjects doesn’t change the underlying reality of those subjects. And the underlying reality here is that it’s not just man/woman or boy/girl, and while those categories may be generally convenient, forcing people into them is a) stupid and b) mad.

    At the end of the day this falls into the category of ‘what other people do with their bits’, and should be treated just the same as the rest of that: none of our business.

  53. DtP>

    “I have yet to hear any of the supportive types quizzing the transgender types as to whether they have the genes and hormones to support their choice.”

    That kind of questioning is one of the very first things that happens if you present with gender dysmorphia (or similar). And what investigations have shown is that in fact a) there’s a lot more outright intersex conditions out there than were recognised in the past and b) there’s no hard dividing line between obviously intersex people and those who ‘only’ have e.g. more of the hormone associated with the opposite sex.

    To return to your earlier bad analogy (and maybe make it worse) with a made-up example, maybe the reason you’re so desperate to be a top basketball player is because you have excess testosterone in your system, and in fact the way to treat the problem is to reduce the amount of testosterone and allow you to make sane choices about what you want from life.

  54. John Square,

    “Bickering about the amount of actual transgenderists aside, I think Tim’s actual point is of interest- Salon et al pander to the base urges of their readership.

    That sounds fair to me but doesn’t this also fulfil the definition of Fake news that Salon et al are so worked up about?”

    Fake news is really just a huge sulk by the conservative forces of the media who just don’t like the fact that other people wrote things that won the day. The “fake news” moniker is just an attempt to smear alternative news sources.

    The good news is that it fits Thatcher’s perspective on insults. When you get to the point that all you have left is calling your opponents liars, you’ve lost.

  55. To return to your earlier bad analogy (and maybe make it worse) with a made-up example, maybe the reason you’re so desperate to be a top basketball player is because you have excess testosterone in your system, and in fact the way to treat the problem is to reduce the amount of testosterone and allow you to make sane choices about what you want from life.

    I’d suggest the way to treat it would be to simply refuse to play along… To which one might add a large helping of mockery.

    Kind of in the same way I refuse to call Bruce Jenner anything other than Bruce Jenner and mock him for the choices he’s made and what he pretends to be. Gender is a biological fact, gender identity disorder isn’t. A surgically mutilated male is still a male, and no amount of hormonal therapy and wishful thinking will make him otherwise.

  56. “Kind of in the same way I refuse to call Bruce Jenner anything other than Bruce Jenner and mock him for the choices he’s made and what he pretends to be.”

    I thought you guys were claiming to be against left-wing SJW Marxists?

    Jenner was a right-wing Trump-supporting Republican.

    Whose side are you on?

  57. DtP>

    “I’d suggest the way to treat it would be to simply refuse to play along… To which one might add a large helping of mockery.”

    Uhuh, that’s how to deal with neurological problems, sure, that’ll definitely help.

    BiW>

    ‘Fake news’ is itself fake news. It’s a problem called sophistry, that’s so old its name originates with ancient Athenian democracy.

  58. P.S.

    DtP>

    “A surgically mutilated male is still a male”

    You’re worrying about other people’s bits again. Once again, why? We’re not talking about that. You feel the need to bring the conversation back to it (yet) again.

    Seriously, you lot who are so worried and obsessed by what other people do with their bits are at least as fascinating psychologically (to me) as the people you’re worried about.

    I don’t know all, or even many, of the answers here. I think it’s quite possible some or many unhappy/borderline sane people are making poor choices, or focusing on the wrong problem, or maybe not (and I just ignore the idiocies of people trying to tell them what they should do, however supportive they may pretend to be). But they’re their lives, I don’t see why I would try and impose my opinion on them.

    And here you are, certain that it’s an outrage that a man might ask you to call him a woman, let alone that he might have a surgeon fiddle with his bits. What are you worrying about?

  59. I thought you guys were claiming to be against left-wing SJW Marxists?

    Jenner was a right-wing Trump-supporting Republican.

    Whose side are you on?

    I am not prepared to play pretend with Jenner just because he votes Republican.

  60. “I am not prepared to play pretend with Jenner just because he votes Republican.”

    Thanks. That’s my point. You’re not against SJWs, you’re against transgender people. So it’s hardly any surprise when society concludes that the Marxists are totally right about right-wingers, and justified in their efforts to stamp on them. Well done.

  61. Uhuh, that’s how to deal with neurological problems, sure, that’ll definitely help.

    Why are you advocating that we ignore neurological problems in others?

    Will that help those so afflicted?

    Interesting that you’re the one stating explicitly that transgenderism is a neurological problem. Not even I went there…

  62. All this genotype/chromosome stuff is very interesting. I suspect it’s also a bloody waste of time.

    I think it’s just people worrying themselves into elective surgery.

    I convinced myself earlier we were out of cinnamon. I was at the shops and I became convinced I’d used the last of the jar in the week, so I spent 89p on a new jar ( I needed some for a pie, and was anxious I’d not be able to make it if I had no cinnamon). The minute I got home I saw that I had plenty in the old one, and needn’t have bothered.
    Replace ‘Cinnamon’ with fake tits, ‘pie’ with ‘a vision of a life where I am happy and well adjusted’ and ’89p’ with ‘profound psychological harm’ and it’s pretty much the same thing.

  63. Thanks. That’s my point. You’re not against SJWs, you’re against transgender people. So it’s hardly any surprise when society concludes that the Marxists are totally right about right-wingers, and justified in their efforts to stamp on them. Well done.

    Actually, all I’ve proven is that I’m not Marxist enough to ignore the obvious reality of this particular situation. Playing pretend is, after all, what Marxism really is all about.

    As for being “against” transgender people, all I can say is I am not prepared to meet them on their stated terms. If refusing to play along is being “against”, then so be it. In my world, reality prevails.

  64. “I convinced myself earlier we were out of cinnamon. […] The minute I got home I saw that I had plenty in the old one, and needn’t have bothered.”

    Sure. And could you have maintained the belief that you were out of cinnamon for the required two years of psychological counseling and simulated cinnamon experience you need to take before they’ll consider you for an elective cinnamon transplant?

    The surgery is dangerous and results in a need for lifelong medical treatments. They’ll only do it in the most severe cases where the alternatives are surgery or suicide. It’s not a decision anyone takes lightly.

  65. NiV: “The Marxists have this technique in which they use some sympathy-inspiring group to justify their demands for power over society. They started off with the poor. They’ve done it with the disabled, blacks, gays, women, and now the transgender.”

    So far so good as Steve McQueen said.

    ” In each case, they portray the right-wing as sexist, racist, homophobic bigots”

    No –not the right-wing. Everybody not in their gang is their target not the “right-wing” in the sense you are trying to use it.

    There is no “neutral” group of observers waiting to be influenced.

    ” persecuting a vulnerable minority, so they need to institute restrictions on society to combat them.”

    Nobody outside of well off Uni-indoctrinated middle/upper class CM London Bubble scum swallows that shite. But the Bubblers have boss class power so defy their Newspeak edicts and get sacked.

    “he minorities are grateful for the support, society sees the left as the “caring” side of every argument, and cite every example they can find of the right-wingers making sexist/racist/etc. statements to justify their claims, which neutral observers tend to be convinced by. Hence their success in the culture wars.”

    Threatening the sack to those who need the job and getting at dumb kids is their only “success”. There is no great sympathy for these minorities in society. There is tolerance at a live and let live level. But the effect you describe above NiV is the exact opposite of the truth. It is the extreme demands for hatred and self-hatred against white people and for bathroom invasion that create outrage against the scum of the left. Most people have a modicum of sympathy but are not bleeding hearts as you are.

    “The way to fight it is to make clear that those minorities best interests are actually served by right-wing policies, and right-wingers care too”

    The minorities can only have their best interests served if they are not inimical to most peoples. Invading womens toilets is not good for women. Sympathy is one thing. Outre demands are another.

    “But too many right-wingers can be predictably relied upon to attack not the Marxist authoritarians, but the minority group they’re hiding behind.”

    Not pandering to certain groups is not the same as attacking them. Trans-g’s cutting off their dicks and dressing as women is up to them (and as I have said snipping your organ shows commitment: it means the person isn’t just a perve looking for chances and thus those with commitment can go in the Ladies as they are unlikely to be wrongdoers)–no one is “persecuting” them.

    “That has precisely the opposite effect to the one intended – it convinces everyone that the Marxists are totally *right* about right-wingers. That’s why I keep arguing about it.”

    The wrong strategy on every count. SJWs must be hit and hit hard. The last year shows the truth of that. Your pussyfoot Mr Nice routine will hand them victory on a plate.

    “But there’s sufficient evidence to conclude that it’s very likely down to genes and hormones in many if not all cases.”

    Kettle and pot. It is you who want to believe just as much as anyone else.

    Dave- Again what people do with their bits in private and with the consenting is their business. Except when Marxian scum try to employ even low level threat to make me accept the claim that 2+2=5. A bewigged male asking me to accept he is female will be met with a polite refusal. At this point if I remember correctly Bruce Jenner threatened violence against a much smaller individual who refused to acknowledge his delusions on TV. If Jenner was just some weird who wanted to be called by a woman’s name it would matter little. But now it has become a point of principle. He is not a woman and no person who believes In objective truth should accept the threats either of the deluded themselves or–much more importantly –of the marxian cheering section behind this “republican”. It maybe that the former jock is too dumb to understand the implications of what is swirling around him. Other people are not.

    Wars have started for far less important reasons.

  66. “Playing pretend is, after all, what Marxism really is all about.”

    You have a very odd idea of what Marxism is about.

    “In my world, reality prevails.”

    Yeah. That’s what everybody says. 🙂

    “I’ve yet to meet the Marxist with the balls to attempt a stamping of me, and I’m 60.”

    Try North Korea.

  67. “No –not the right-wing. Everybody not in their gang is their target not the “right-wing” in the sense you are trying to use it.”

    Muslims?

    “Nobody outside of well off Uni-indoctrinated middle/upper class CM London Bubble scum swallows that shite.”

    About 80% of the UK population do, as of a couple of years ago.

    “There is no great sympathy for these minorities in society.”

    The poor? Women? The disabled? What planet are you living on?!

    “The wrong strategy on every count. SJWs must be hit and hit hard.”

    YES! The SJWs – NOT the groups they’re hiding behind!!! How many times do I have to say it?!

    Sheesh!

  68. “I must have missed the part about Bruce Jenner being suicidal.”

    Then you’ve not been paying attention.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/caitlyn-jenner-reveals-years-torment-6111845

    “North Korea can’t even feed itself.”

    If that was true, they’d be dead already.

    I sometimes find it hard to believe the things people believe. North Korean Communist dictators operating a police state can’t feed themselves? Weird!

    Still, I guess reality triumphs in your world, eh?

  69. NiV –

    And as to Bruce Jenner… Note that your link refers to his after-the-fact justification that appeared on his ill-fated reality TV show.

    That’s somewhat different to being diagnosed as suicidal by a trained mental health professional in a clinical setting.

  70. “That’s somewhat different to being diagnosed as suicidal by a trained mental health professional in a clinical setting.”

    You think that’s the only way that you can tell if someone is suicidal? That a person can think they’re suicidal, but actually be mistaken?

    How does that work? And what do you think a trained mental health professional would do to tell the difference? They have some sort of “suicide meter” they can hook you up to?

    “And it’s worth noting that almost exactly a year ago, North Korea publicly warned its citizens to prepare for another famine.”

    And Kim Jong Un is so thin. Almost skeletal…

    “Weird, eh?”

    Yeah.


    I think you’re confusing the communists with their victims. Or maybe not. It’s hard to tell, with some people.

  71. @NiV

    If that’s the process for getting more cinnamon, I’d not make the pie in the first place.

  72. How does that work? And what do you think a trained mental health professional would do to tell the difference? They have some sort of “suicide meter” they can hook you up to?

    I see. In your reality you can diagnose suicidal tendencies without any relevant training, experience or even a meeting with the patient. Professionals, however, are little more than witch doctors…

    Got it.

  73. (Nobody outside of well off Uni-indoctrinated middle/upper class CM London Bubble scum swallows that shite.)

    “About 80% of the UK population do, as of a couple of years ago.”

    Please report the basis for this delusion NiV. You believe 80% of the West wants men in women’s toilets to give one example. Even amongst continental cucks that is a ludicrous claim.

    (There is no great sympathy for these minorities in society.)

    “The poor? Women? The disabled? What planet are you living on?!”

    The whole point of cultural Marxism is that the old class war cockrot doesn’t work any more.

    Sympathy for the poor? You mean like these girls who are supposed to be too poor to afford sanitary towels? The Guardian tries that constantly and gets constantly debunked on this very blog and loads of others.

    Women–well any real issues they had have been settled–all that’s left is Bubbler bollocks–once again debunked. Even most women aren’t taken in any more.

    The disabled? Who is slagging the disabled? Apart from not jumping thro SJW verbalshite hoops. Do you really imagine that more than a handful–let alone 80% of the population are taken in by such malarkey?

    (The wrong strategy on every count. SJWs must be hit and hit hard.)

    “YES! The SJWs – NOT the groups they’re hiding behind!!! How many times do I have to say it?!”

    So you let the SJWs set the terms and chose their battlegrounds but we are supposed “hit them hard” under the agenda that they have created.

    Is this more of your making friends with Jihadis tripe? We kiss their arse and become their new best friends and they will abandon their Marxist pals?

    Pathetic.

  74. “If that’s the process for getting more cinnamon, I’d not make the pie in the first place.”

    Most don’t.

    A lot of people seem to think this is some sort of casual decision, or something that could be done as some kind of stunt, or for advantage. But for trans people (as it was for gay people before them) “coming out” is actually one of the most momentous events in their life, taking the utmost courage. The social pressures to conform are enormous. The potential rewards are too (if you’re genuinely trans), and generally regarded as well worth the price. But nobody finds it easy.

  75. DtP>

    “Why are you advocating that we ignore neurological problems in others?”

    I’m advocating not rubbing their faces in their problems. Can’t see the point in that. If a man says he wants us to call him a sofa, do you have a problem with that? Or only when he wants to be called a woman?

    As for neurological, that may be the wrong word. I meant problems rooted in physiology rather than psychology.

    As for my theory of the whole thing, I don’t think it’s relevant. It’s probably at least partly wrong, or at best merely ignorant of certain aspects of the issue. I don’t think your theory, or even Ecksy’s madness masquerading as a theory, is relevant.

    Whatever we think of the people involved’s reasons for doing stuff, it doesn’t matter. Wen shrug our shoulders and let them get on with it. But in this case our host, and many of the commenters here, feel very strongly about it and get all het up.

    Frankly, Ecksian ranting is topic-neutral, like Murphyist calls for moar tax. But it’s odd how the rationals round here, starting with The Tim himself, seem really upset by something they would normally be entirely uninterested in, let alone concerned by.

  76. “An response truly worthy of your intellect and integrity.”

    It was a response worthy of your deliberate obtuseness.

    You knew very well that when I directed your attention to North Korea as a source of “Marxist with the balls to attempt a stamping of me,”, I was talking about the ruling party, not the starving peasants.

    “I see. In your reality you can diagnose suicidal tendencies without any relevant training, experience or even a meeting with the patient.”

    Isn’t that what you just did? You’re arguing that the patient themselves cannot tell. The patient herself says he was suicidal. You’re so devoted to your own picture of reality that you’ll conclude that without a trained professional they couldn’t tell?!

    “Please report the basis for this delusion NiV.”

    http://news.sky.com/story/trans-people-poll-reveals-changing-attitudes-10352288

    Please report the basis of your delusion that they’re not.

    “You believe 80% of the West wants men in women’s toilets to give one example”

    They’re women in women’s toilets, according to the legal definition.

    And in any case, *everyone* accepts men and women in the same toilets, in other contexts. How many bathrooms does your house have?

    “The whole point of cultural Marxism is that the old class war cockrot doesn’t work any more.”

    Yep. That’s why they moved on to different targets.

    Do you think that defending the poor wasn’t how Marxists started? And do you think they really cared about the poor?

    “So you let the SJWs set the terms and chose their battlegrounds but we are supposed “hit them hard” under the agenda that they have created.”

    That depends on whether the Marxists are right. If they’re right and you really are bigoted against minorities like the transgender, then obviously it’s your place to make that case, and for society to judge you on your values as they actually are. Don’t lie and claim to only be against SJWs when that’s not the issue.

    But if they’re wrong, and you’re only against SJW political correctness, not trans people, then attacking trans people instead of SJWs is counterproductive and only enables the SJW victory.

    What’s more important to you? The fight against SJWs? Or the one against the women / gays / transgender?

  77. If a man says he wants us to call him a sofa, do you have a problem with that?

    Yes. He isn’t a sofa. And quite frankly, I am under no obligation – either personal or societal – to indulge him as such.

    It’s kind of like Spud wanting to present himself as a “tax expert”. He isn’t one, and indulging him publicly could lead to some taking his claim seriously. That could have real world consequences… none of which would be good.

  78. You knew very well that when I directed your attention to North Korea as a source of “Marxist with the balls to attempt a stamping of me,”, I was talking about the ruling party, not the starving peasants.

    Ah, so now I have the power of mindreading… when having such is convenient to your purpose.

    Weird.

  79. You all have overlooked the likelihood that gradually you all are becoming sexually strange – bit by bit.
    Evolution has decided that homo sapiens was a mistake.
    Step forward spiders as the main life form.

  80. Isn’t that what you just did? You’re arguing that the patient themselves cannot tell. The patient herself says he was suicidal. You’re so devoted to your own picture of reality that you’ll conclude that without a trained professional they couldn’t tell?!

    No, that isn’t what I did. All I did was point out that you were using a tabloid article of Bruce Jenner’s after the fact justification that appeared on a reality TV show to ‘prove’ Jenner had been suicidal, and that for some of us that doesn’t quite rise to the level of proof.

  81. “All I did was point out that you were using a tabloid article of Bruce Jenner’s after the fact justification that appeared on a reality TV show to ‘prove’ Jenner had been suicidal, and that for some of us that doesn’t quite rise to the level of proof.”

    Fine. But then I’m not convinced that anything would.

    I’ve discussed the consensus of the psychological profession’s here before, that transgenderism is genuine, isn’t a mental illness, does result in significant distress and even suicidal tendencies largely because of the reaction of society, and should be treated.

    The response was to conclude that psychologists are either supporters of the SJW agenda themselves, or had been threatened by them at some conference in America a few decades ago, and we’re therefore promoting this treatment because they were all running scared.

    In the face of such immovable certainty, there’s little I can do to persuade you. As I say, society will judge. All I can do is to prove to any bystanders that not everyone on the right is like that.

  82. Good lord, is this still going?

    NiV- I’m afraid I was being flippant in my earlier comments: I’m not debating this one, I just don’t think it’s a particularly big issue, and it definitely fits into the general category of ‘if someone wants to do that, that’s their look out’.

    I do get why others are bothered though- the media demands that we treat these folk with understanding, compassion and so forth and generally indulge them- which I (perhaps like Ecks and Dennis) suspect makes things worse rather than better.

    On your points- the parts I read seemed very well thought through, but your replies to me all seemed to start from a point of acceptance that the dilemma they face can only be rectified by the current means, and followed through with an explanation of the process of gender reassignment.

    The point (if any) I was making was that all this seems very invasive and dangerous. My flippant point (that it all seems like a lot of bother) was hinting that perhaps the problem lies prior to the process kicking in.

    If Im pushed to be serious about this- don’t really think that the mechanics of gender reassignment are that interesting. I’m more interested in the help we offer people ahead of the decision to go through with reassignment. The whole process strikes me as an almost nihilistic rejection of their self, or at least, the reality they operate within.

    I wonder if resolving those issues first might help more than the gender reassignment. Simply put, is the dysphoria a symptom, rather than a cause of their issues?

    Like I said- I’ve not really got a dog in this fight, and I’m sure my points have. Even covered above- but rather than appear discourteous, I thought I’d elucidate a little.

  83. “I do get why others are bothered though- the media demands that we treat these folk with understanding, compassion and so forth and generally indulge them”

    Yes, I agree – it’s the “demand” that’s the problem. When people can get fired or otherwise persecuted for having the wrong opinions on this issue, I agree that that’s a problem worth fighting about.

    “I’m more interested in the help we offer people ahead of the decision to go through with reassignment.”

    Well, there’s certainly plenty of that. And there are multiple waypoints short of SRS that a lot of transgender people find sufficient.

    “The whole process strikes me as an almost nihilistic rejection of their self, or at least, the reality they operate within.”

    The transgender would argue that it’s about acceptance of themselves as they actually are, rather than how society insists that they ought to be given their external body pattern. It’s “fitting in” that involves annihilation of the self.

    It would be as if society had got this idea that short-sighted people who wear glasses are all introverted geeks, and insisted on them acting that way. Sporty extroverts who just happened to be short-sighted would have to deny their sports-loving party tendencies to fit in, and sit in the library reading maths books while watching out of the window all the other kids playing ball. Isn’t that denial of the self?

    “I wonder if resolving those issues first might help more than the gender reassignment. Simply put, is the dysphoria a symptom, rather than a cause of their issues?”

    It’s always very difficult in the early stages of research where there can be many different conditions that have the same symptoms (or close enough that they’re hard to distinguish). It’s probably not a single cause – the brain has lots of different modules and functions, each of which can get switched over to the other sex’s pattern independently, and there are probably many of them involved in gender identity. (Brain scan studies have identified about 30 sex-linked anatomical features, but there are probably lots more.) And yes, there could be other psychological states that result in the ‘delusion’ that one is dysphoric (if that makes sense), in the same way that people with extremely rare neurological conditions can believe they’re dead, or controlled by aliens.

    It’s complicated.

    “Like I said- I’ve not really got a dog in this fight, and I’m sure my points have. Even covered above- but rather than appear discourteous, I thought I’d elucidate a little.”

    Thanks. Your courtesy is appreciated.

  84. “This is a bizarre obsession of the 0.00000001% by the 0.0001%.”

    Or of the 1% by the 20%, depending on whose statistics you trust.

    However, my argument is about the principles of authoritarianism versus libertarianism, which is by no means a minority issue. The example it’s applied to doesn’t really matter.

  85. Fine. But then I’m not convinced that anything would.

    That’s one way of admitting your own intellectual laziness. Link to one tabloid article and then airily wave off any suggestion that said article is, in and of itself, less than conclusive by claiming doubters wouldn’t be satisfied with any level of substantiation.

    That really doesn’t strike a blow against authoritarianism, you know.

  86. Dave: “Frankly, Ecksian ranting is topic-neutral, like Murphyist calls for moar tax.”

    Or your own horseshit about anti-Jewish conspiracies.

    NiV–Sky news says 48% are “more accepting” of gender reassignment surgery. This is what the great statistician is reduced to?

    Funny–out of their “100% survey” they didn’t ask me or anyone I know. And I would have said I don’t care so long as they are paying for it themselves.

    ” Don’t lie and claim to only be against SJWs when that’s not the issue.”

    So when we get down to it –NiV the great SJW (non) fighter IS an SJW and admits that SJW claims are valid. But he is still going to defeat them without refuting the bollocks that is what the SJWs are all about.

    So, for example and by analogy–and piss on Godwin–“that Hitler bloke is alright and his ideas are sound but we are still going to bend Heaven and Earth to beat him regardless of cost”. Because why exactly NiV?

    As I always suspected you are an SJW and some token crap about being against “authoritarians” is just that–token bollocks that serves as a footnote to a tale that witnesses madness

  87. “That’s one way of admitting your own intellectual laziness. Link to one tabloid article and then airily wave off any suggestion that said article is, in and of itself, less than conclusive by claiming doubters wouldn’t be satisfied with any level of substantiation.”

    References to the source being a “tabloid” is an example of the ad hominem fallacy. The actual source was Jenner herself – unless you think the tabloid misquoted her?

    So what you’re basically saying is that even if the person involved themselves says “I was suicidal” – even though the person is the only one who could possibly know – you still won’t believe it.

    By the same logic, you could disbelieve absolutely *anything* anybody says about their internal mental state. Happy, sad, bored, introvert, extrovert, theist, … we’ve got no objective proof of any of it. We’ve got no proof that mental health professionals are telling the truth, either.

    Which is technically true – solipsist philosophers would argue that we’ve got no objective evidence that anyone else has any mental states at all. But given that the only possible external evidence for internal mental states is being rejected as insufficient proof for their existence, I fail to see what other evidence possibly could.

    Obviously, for exactly the same reason I can’t tell that you believe what you claim to, either. But assuming you do, and you’re applying the solipsist argument consistently, I don’t think any evidence could convince you. Even if you said you were convinced just to refute me, you might be lying. It’s a difficult position to hold for long.

    Silly argument, really.

  88. “Funny–out of their “100% survey” they didn’t ask me or anyone I know.”

    I’m quite sure you know how surveys work.

    “So when we get down to it –NiV the great SJW (non) fighter IS an SJW and admits that SJW claims are valid. But he is still going to defeat them without refuting the bollocks that is what the SJWs are all about.”

    It’s not SJWs who are making these claims – it’s the medical researchers and psychologists. SJWs just exploit them.

    “So, for example and by analogy–and piss on Godwin–“that Hitler bloke is alright and his ideas are sound but we are still going to bend Heaven and Earth to beat him regardless of cost”. Because why exactly NiV?”

    Hitler argued that the Germans got a raw deal out of the Versailles treaty, with the victorious European countries punishing them. He used that to get Germans to vote for him, so he would have the power to punish the European countries in return.

    But Hitler didn’t invent the argument. He just used the popular German sentiment about their persecution to justify his own rise to power. So if you want to oppose him, you *don’t* tell the Germans they’re wrong and they got a peachy deal out of Versailles – not when they’re suffering rampant hyperinflation and economic catastrophe. You don’t spend all you’re time telling them that the German people are scum who deserve everything they get, either. Do that, and you’ll just convince them Hitler’s right about you, and they’ll vote him in.

    No, you have to convince them that there’s an alternative that doesn’t require Hitler invading the rest of Europe (like, help them out economically). You have to get them to vote for you instead.

    The trick is to distinguish “the Germans” from “Hitler”. They’re not the same.

  89. So what you’re basically saying is that even if the person involved themselves says “I was suicidal”…

    The problem I have with his claim, NiV, is that it is somewhat self-serving: it provides a post-fact explanation for a dramatic action. It may well be true – but I wouldn’t rely on it as proof of very much without corroboration.

  90. NiV – “Well, it’s known that transgenderism is at least partly genetic, so that part isn’t a big surprise.”

    No it is not. That is not true. That is wishful thinking. At best years of hard searching have turned up a minor correlation which is likely bogus.

    And the irony is that sex is 100% genetic. There is no dispute about that. But the fantasy is more important to the Left than the scientific reality.

    “MtF transgenderism has been linked to a longer version of the gene for the NR3C4 androgen receptor protein.”

    “Has been linked to” != “Is”.

    “so there may well be other biological causes of transgenderism that could cause both.”

    And Big Foot maybe wandering the forests of Kentucky. I would not bet on it. It is not as if people have not looked or as if there are not massive rewards if people found such a politically convenient link.

    “It’s thought that about 90% of those with dyphoria don’t come out, because of fears of rejection by family and friends.”

    Wonderful use of the passive voice there. There are a tiny number of deeply unhappy people with a specific mental illness. Tiny. They may try to inflate those numbers but even among Gay people – itself an insignificant community – the Trans are insignificant. Numerically anyway. Politically is another matter.

  91. References to the source being a “tabloid” is an example of the ad hominem fallacy. The actual source was Jenner herself – unless you think the tabloid misquoted her?

    You didn’t link to the video in question (from I Am Caitlyn). You linked to a tabloid story about the video. I simply stated that fact.

    Evidently accurately presenting facts constitutes an ad hominem fallacy in your world.

    Weird.

  92. Dave – “The obsession continues, I see.This blog is pretty much the only place I ever see anything about anyone transgender.”

    Dave and his friends spit in everyone else’s soup for a decade. Oddly enough this does not make Dave or his pet cause popular.

    Dave’s response is to insist we are all weird for obsessing about it.

    If Dave and his friends go away and stop bullying the rest of us, so will our obsession.

  93. So what you’re basically saying is that even if the person involved themselves says “I was suicidal” – even though the person is the only one who could possibly know – you still won’t believe it.

    All this does is confirm that you have neither training nor experience in any aspect of mental health. So let me clue you in a few things because, well, I do.

    I spent four very happy years working as the Finance Director of a small non-profit social service agency that specialized in child abuse prevention. One of my duties was working the agency’s telephone hotline. I received extensive training in both child abuse issues as well as hotline protocols. Over those four years I logged hundreds of hours on the phone dealing with people – parents, grandparents, kids, etc. – who were either under stress (moderate to severe) or in genuine crisis. I enjoyed doing it and was considered by the social work staff we had to be pretty good at it.

    So when I say you’re full of shit, I’m only expressing an opinion based on a level of training and experience I’m damned sure you couldn’t touch.

    The FIRST THING you do when you answer a hotline call is attempt to come to an understanding of what the caller is actually going through at that moment. And guess what? Very often reality (there’s that word again) differs from what the caller is articulating. So when a parent tells you, “I’m going to kill my kid”, you have to take it seriously. What you DO NOT DO is automatically take it at face value.

    That’s because you don’t know if they’re ready to kill their kid. And if they aren’t really going to kill their kid, the last thing you want to be doing is trying to find out where they are so you can have the cops send a SWAT team to extract them (and their family) from their home. The reason you get training in the first place is so that you have the tools to probe the caller, evaluate their state of mind and intentions, and then use your training and experience to deal with the situation appropriately.

    I dealt with a woman who told me right off the bat she was going to kill herself because it was either that or she was going to kill her kid. Of course I took it seriously, but I didn’t take what she was saying at face value. I ended up getting one of our social workers onto the line (she was listening only… and giving me silent coaching) and spent over an hour and a half talking her down to a level of calmness where we could figure out what was really going on.

    It was a success. I got her to take the kid to an at-risk children’s shelter in town so each of them could have some space. The kid got some counseling there, and it progressed to the two of them getting into counseling together. About three months after I took her call she called in to the Executive Director to let him know how happy she was with the way I’d handled her call.

    You see, NiV, when you’re dealing people with mental health issues, that last thing you do is take them literally. That lady had no intention of killing herself or her kid. She as tired and angry and frustrated and didn’t know what to do. What I did for that hour and half was get her from what she was saying to what she was actually experiencing. She couldn’t properly articulate what she was experiencing because she was completely confused about what she was experiencing, and if I’d taken her literally I’d have fucked that call up royally. If I’d taken her at face value she’d have ended up in jail or a psych ward, and neither was where she needed to be.

    Maybe Bruce Jenner was suicidal. But just because he says he was doesn’t mean he was. He could be self-dramatizing, he could be justifying himself, or could have been (and maybe still is) extremely confused about what he’s experiencing and ended up articulating the stress from that confusion as ‘being suicidal’. Or he could have actually been suicidal. The point is, there are a variety of possibilities, and each has to be given due consideration.

    Next time, try to consider the idea that the ‘authoritarian’ in the room might know a whole lot more about the subject at hand then you do. You might just learn something.

  94. This whole discussion reminds me of Prof. Jordan Peterson’s issues with a proposed law in Canada making it a crime not to use people preferred pronouns.

    And this is what its coming down to – you either enthusiastically participate in someones delusion or you’re a criminal.

    But yeah, we’re obsessing about it.

    There’s an underlying agenda here at play. ― Theodore Dalrymple absolutely nails it:

    “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

  95. They’re women in women’s toilets, according to the legal definition.

    No, most of them aren’t. They are only, UK, legally women after having the surgery and getting a GRC.

    Which, as you stated up thread, is a small minority of those who identify as transgender.

  96. That’s not the case, SE. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not require surgery to get a gender recognition certificate.

  97. Matthew L: No the article is not helpful. It is more leftist agitprop –altho at much greater length. The style of argument is more subtly abusive than standard SJW shite–his use of metaphor in which you are pitched against the “scientific” ignorance of Biblicals (including Solomon–who although wiser is not better informed than SJWs), Duck Dynasty “rednecks” ( and thus all “deplorables”) , links to scientistic cod-proof (extensive=a few studies etc).
    .

    It is a vastly amplified attempt by some super NiV type to muddy the waters such that 2+2 does=5 if you look at the nuance and the fine-grain long enough.

    I thought about fisking the thing line by line but I’m sick of all this crap. It would have zero effect on the SJW axis anyway

    He still misses the point. By the end of his desert of dreary drivel he at last reaches the” I am Napoleon” . The best he can come up with is to try again to muddy the waters by again trying chunk the delusion down. So that if the extent of the loons Napo complex is that he just wants to wear the silly hat –well why not? Its harmless isn’t it? No it isn’t. Not when–as Flubber points out–Baby Doc Trudeau wants you jailed or ruined if you won’t kiss SJW arse.

    The methods used by the article clown will ultimately reduce everything to such a level that no clear decision could ever be made about anything ever. Which is just what the author wants of course. Then he can step in with his “compassion” bullshit and promote the victory of SJW.

    If Marxism manages to win out you can be sure there will be very little argument let alone nuance about the decision to shoot you and yours in the back of the head.

  98. Anyway- to return to the point:

    I think Tim W is onto something here: this kind of story is nothing more than the DM sidebar of shame for people who hold trendy opinions and like to virtue signal.

  99. This whole discussion reminds me of Prof. Jordan Peterson’s issues with a proposed law in Canada making it a crime not to use people preferred pronouns.

    Hey, it’s that ‘libertarianism’ fighting ‘authoritarianism’ again!

  100. “The problem I have with his claim, NiV, is that it is somewhat self-serving: it provides a post-fact explanation for a dramatic action. It may well be true – but I wouldn’t rely on it as proof of very much without corroboration.”

    Well sure. The problem I have with your claim is that it is self-serving: a post-fact explanation for not believing a reasonable statement about a very common situation. I wouldn’t rely on it as proof of very much without corroboration. Do you have any?

    And if you don’t, can I assume you’re lying?

    “No it is not. That is not true. That is wishful thinking. At best years of hard searching have turned up a minor correlation which is likely bogus.”

    OK. Show me yours maths. What’s the p-value on its significance?

    “And the irony is that sex is 100% genetic. There is no dispute about that. But the fantasy is more important to the Left than the scientific reality.”

    When you’ve produced the maths to prove your claim above, we’ll see whose fantasy is more important than scientific reality.

    “Has been linked to” != “Is”.

    True. As I said, there are probably many variants with many different genetic causes. A break anywhere in the chain of signalling hormones could cause a similar effect.

    ” I would not bet on it. It is not as if people have not looked or as if there are not massive rewards if people found such a politically convenient link.”

    It’s pretty clear from your response that even if someone found more links, you’d deny them.

    “There are a tiny number of deeply unhappy people with a specific mental illness.”

    It’s not a mental illness – they’re only deeply unhappy because of people like you.

    When right-wing dissidents got put in mental hospitals under the Soviet regime, I’m sure they were “deeply unhappy” too. According to the left, being right-wing is a mental illness too. Do you really want to set a precedent in the use those tactics?

    “Evidently accurately presenting facts constitutes an ad hominem fallacy in your world.”

    Dismissing the credibility of a claim or argument on the basis of who is presenting it, rather than the content of the claim, is ad hominem fallacy.

    “Dave and his friends spit in everyone else’s soup for a decade. Oddly enough this does not make Dave or his pet cause popular.”

    And gays, trans, and other dissidents have had their soup spat in for the past four thousand years. Do you think that makes you popular?

    “If Dave and his friends go away and stop bullying the rest of us, so will our obsession.”

    So you can get on with your own bullying undisturbed?

    “All this does is confirm that you have neither training nor experience in any aspect of mental health. So let me clue you in a few things because, well, I do.”

    Trivial example. I figured in the first paragraph of your example case that it was likely to be rhetorical hyperbole. (They’re reporting the fact that they were genuinely tempted for a moment and rejected the temptation as a way of expressing the intensity of their feelings.) If you’re really going to kill someone, you don’t call up the authorities and tell them first. Sure, you take it seriously just in case, but the ones who call you up are not the problem. Everyone knows that.

    However, if you look at the guidelines put out by the various psychiatric and psychological bodies regarding treatment of transgender people (e.g. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf or https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/preventing-suicide-lgbtq-youth), they all mention suicide ideation and self-harming behaviour as common risks to watch out for. It’s well known to be a risk factor, and I see no warnings to indicate such claims might not be genuine. If you’ve got any, I’d be interested.

    Personally, I’d be concerned that anyone working on a social services hotline wouldn’t know that, and might not take such claims from transgender people seriously – especially if that’s because their political views are leading them to disbelieve callers.

    “And this is what its coming down to – you either enthusiastically participate in someones delusion or you’re a criminal.”

    It shouldn’t be illegal not to use someone’s preferred pronouns. When Frank Zappa got asked whether he was a woman because he had long hair, the interviewer who did so shouldn’t be prosecuted for it. Had he then spent the rest of the interview referring to him as “Mrs Zappa”, he still shouldn’t be prosecuted. It’s a sign that you’re being a deliberately obnoxious arse, but being rude shouldn’t be illegal.

    The same reasoning applies to whether you should have to give bishops and archbishops their ecclesiastical titles – are you enthusiastically participating in their delusion? People with different beliefs *always* regard each other as labouring under delusions, and the odds are, everybody does have at least some false beliefs.

    I’m not saying it should be illegal to mock someone for having different beliefs to you. I’m saying it’s politically a tactical error to do so, because they and everyone who sympathises with them will switch their allegiance to the SJWs who are supporting them, and spread the word that your side are bigoted bullies not worth defending. SJW arguments that your free speech rights ought to be suppressed will be listened to.

    “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity.”

    Yes. Trans people know that their experiences are genuine, but here you are telling them that they’re lies, and forcing them to repeat those lies themselves. It’s a generic authoritarian technique – the communists were only the latest users of it.

    Freedom of belief applies to everyone, but only goes so far. Politeness is something we trade on top of that – we respect other people’s beliefs in the expectation that they will respect ours. If you want to treat someone as mentally ill or deluded for holding their honest beliefs, then you may expect other people to do the same to you.

    “No, most of them aren’t. They are only, UK, legally women after having the surgery and getting a GRC.”

    You have a point. The law does have a separate category for the transgender.

    Equality Act 2010 Section 7 paragraph 1:

    A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

    And the bit about toilets is covered by section 35.

    “I think most people in this thread would benefit from this essay:”

    I really like that!

    “You can point out how many important professors of icthyology in fancy suits use your definition, and how only a couple of people with really weird facial hair use his. But now you’re making a status argument, not a factual argument.”

    “So that if the extent of the loons Napo complex is that he just wants to wear the silly hat –well why not? Its harmless isn’t it? No it isn’t. Not when–as Flubber points out–Baby Doc Trudeau wants you jailed or ruined if you won’t kiss SJW arse.”

    Some people want you jailed or ruined if you go into what they consider to be the “wrong” toilet. What’s the difference?

    Is it something along the lines of “But we’re right and they’re wrong”? And when they say exactly the same thing, what’s the difference?

    “The methods used by the article clown will ultimately reduce everything to such a level that no clear decision could ever be made about anything ever.”

    Yes. Nobody would be able to tell anyone what they have to believe, say, or do (so long as it harms no one else). That is what you mean by “clear decision”, isn’t it?

  101. Personally, I’d be concerned that anyone working on a social services hotline wouldn’t know that, and might not take such claims from transgender people seriously – especially if that’s because their political views are leading them to disbelieve callers.

    This makes it quite clear that you didn’t bother to actually read what I wrote. I expected nothing less from the likes of you.

  102. “Some people want you jailed or ruined if you go into what they consider to be the “wrong” toilet. What’s the difference?”

    You mean like by accident NiV? No one has suggested that.

    By intent? No –not if your dick is still attached. Because even if the very small number of trans-gs were 101% harmless they open the floodgates for pervs galore.

    And no shite about “all the pervs are already perving” NiV. If the scum of the state made locks/bolts /cctv/alarms illegal you would argue “There will be no burglary/housebreaking explosion because all those with a taste for burglary are already burgling”. Bollocks. Lot of opportunists would rush to join the established B&E crew.

    Lots of pervs want to film, harass, grope, assault, rape (and worse) women. But don’t want to get caught before they get their jollys because they were reported brazenly walking into the ladies as men or as Desperate-Dan-in-Drag lookalikes. Or trying to climb in thro small windows.

    When the cops get called to arrest those trying complain about the above circs –instead of those going in–then predators will know open season has arrived.

    “Nobody would be able to tell anyone what they have to believe, say, or do (so long as it harms no one else). That is what you mean by “clear decision”, isn’t it?”

    So you will be helping to put a stop to Trudeau’s antics will you? And were do you start with the “harms someone else ” line? Will you absolutely exclude words from that?

  103. “This makes it quite clear that you didn’t bother to actually read what I wrote. I expected nothing less from the likes of you.”

    I read what you wrote.

    And “the likes of you” reflects the sort of judgemental attitude I’m talking about. Social workers don’t address the people they meet as “the likes of you”. That sets up stereotypes and creates barriers that get in the way of fixing people’s problems.

    Jenner said she had contemplated suicide, as a large fraction of transgender people have. It’s a credible – even expected – claim to make under the circumstances most transgender people find themselves in, and I’d expect any social worker to take it as true with reasonably high confidence unless there was other strong evidence to contradict it. Nothing is ever 100%, but it’s as believable as anything people say. To make a particular point of being sceptical about it suggests that you don’t think transgender people are particularly prone to suicidal ideation, think that such claims are likely to be self-justifying or worse “self-dramatizing”, and are particularly to be doubted. That worries me.

    Like I said, every set of guidelines from professional psychology/psychiatry/counseling bodies I’ve seen makes a particular point of suicidal ideation being a particular issue for the transgender, and none of them that I can see suggests that any of it is “self-justifying” or “self-dramatizing”. They all treat it as a genuine issue. So why don’t you?

    What set of guidelines are you using?

  104. If you read what I wrote, then why distort it? Nothing I wrote even faintly endorsed the idea that claims of suicidal tendencies should be ignored. What I stated is that such claims always need to be properly evaluated… Nothing more, nothing less.

    And what part of the dark recesses of your mind did you come up with the delusion that trained hotline workers – professionals or volunteers – would dismiss a caller’s claims based on their political affiliations?

    And as I said, you don’t have a clue. You have no training and no experience… Nothing but a couple of links that confirm your personal prejudices.

    Just another WGCE.

  105. “Lots of pervs want to film, harass, grope, assault, rape (and worse) women. But don’t want to get caught before they get their jollys because they were reported brazenly walking into the ladies as men or as Desperate-Dan-in-Drag lookalikes.”

    You walk in with a bag of tools labeled “Ecks’s & Sons Plumbers”. You leave a little sign outside saying “Plumbing in Progress” so you won’t be disturbed.

    Criminals aim to be inconspicuous and unremarkable, hard to describe, and unlikely to be noticed or remembered by witnesses. They also prefer shoes they can run fast in. There are a million and one places where women can be found alone, that are accessible to men. Railway carriages, elevators, bars, dark alleyways, taxis, car parks, their own homes… It’s not hard. It’s also pretty easy to wait outside a toilet until there’s nobody in sight, if toilets are particularly your thing. (Just look at your watch impatiently and roll your eyes if anyone looks your way. Other men will sympathise.)

    It’s just an excuse. The Muslims segregate the sexes for the same reason – because they believe that if you let men and women mix alone they’d get up to no good. But Western society demonstrates that it is rubbish. It’s segregation and sexual restriction that leaves men desperate enough to go to extreme measures to satisfy their desires – it’s sexual liberalism, familiarity, and easy availability of alternatives like porn that reduce the pressures on men to risk their life and liberty.

    Most people live in houses with only a single toilet, shared by men and women. The last time a workman came round to fix my mother’s central heating, he asked to use her loo. Guy alone in the house with a woman alert! Guy going into a woman’s toilet alert! But nothing untoward happened. He even left the toilet seat down when he was finished!

    It’s an irrational fear. It’s a classic use of the Group A/Group B trick. You want to discriminate against Group A, but can’t think of any justification for doing so. So you find a Group B that everybody agree should be discriminated against, that overlaps with Group A, and then you demand restrictions on Group A to prevent the damage done by Group B.

    “Heterosexual men” and “rapists” overlap, so you should treat all heterosexual men as rapists to prevent rape. It’s deranged. But to the deranged it seems to make perfect sense, because all they can see is the desired outcome being achieved. Group A got stamped on, and that’s all that matters.

  106. “If you read what I wrote, then why distort it? Nothing I wrote even faintly endorsed the idea that claims of suicidal tendencies should be ignored.”

    What you said endorsed the idea that such claims coming only from the person themselves should not be believed.

    You said “I must have missed the part about Bruce Jenner being suicidal.” I pointed to that part where Jenner claimed to have been suicidal, and you dismissed it on the grounds that she had not been “diagnosed as suicidal by a trained mental health professional in a clinical setting”.

    You are implying that I shouldn’t have believed Jenner’s own statement, because it hadn’t been assessed by an ‘expert’. Only you and and your profession are the gatekeepers to truth in such matters, and I must defer to your professional judgement. Which turned out to be that she might be “self-justifying” or “self-dramatizing”.

    And I don’t think that any professional who has the faintest idea what the lives of most trans people are like would think that such complaints are likely to be “self-justifying” or “self-dramatizing”.

    So, as I asked previously – do you know of any widespread set of clinical guidelines on dealing with transgender people that recommends the professional should consider whether the subject is “self-justifying” or “self-dramatizing” when they claim suicidal ideation? Because I don’t think any mainstream professionals would do that, and I’d be very interested to be proven wrong.

  107. “You walk in with a bag of tools labeled “Ecks’s & Sons Plumbers”. You leave a little sign outside saying “Plumbing in Progress” so you won’t be disturbed.”

    If you want to sit on your own in an empty women’s toilet all day you might do that.Although anywhere with security will sooner or later realise that unauthorised “work” is going on.

    No -of course. how silly of me. You do this while women are already in the toilet of course. Your put up a sign and go in the Ladies in full view of those going past. That is not suspicious at all is it. In fact wasn’t this in Mission Impossible 4 ?. And of course no woman in the Ladies would be alarmed by a male plumber walking into a working toilet (this is under today’s conditions remember) when a woman could have been sent in to clear people out first. Of course if the toilet is lonely/isolated it won’t matter if the woman is alarmed as she will be alone. But then there would be no need for the Tom Cruse capers in the first place.

    “Criminals aim to be inconspicuous and unremarkable, hard to describe, and unlikely to be noticed or remembered by witnesses.”

    You don’t say NiV. Thank you for that stunning criminological insight. But if those were their paramount concern they would get little crime done. It some point they have to take a risk and first evaluate that risk.

    ” They also prefer shoes they can run fast in.”

    The pursuit of dragged up crims in high heels. Well it is a factor. But how long do you think those using womens toilets are going to have to dress as women. If having a dick attached to your body does not disqualify you from claiming to be a woman how long do you think dressing in man’s clothes will stand. Some normal looking man dressed in normal male clothes will tell a court that he identifies as a woman but because of the discrimination he suffers in this horrid globohomophobo society he must dress as a man. Soon men dressed as men will be able to go into the Ladies commit a crime, take to their heels (if necs) and/or simply melt into the crowd in a way no dragged-up special could ever do.

    “There are a million and one places where women can be found alone, that are accessible to men. Railway carriages, elevators, bars, dark alleyways, taxis, car parks, their own homes… It’s not hard.”

    Women tend to shun lonely isolated places. Marginal areas are in fact where most violent crime happens to both sexes. So while a predator will find some victims in lonely areas the idea that doing so is a doddle so no need of new stalking grounds is as wrong as you can get.

    “It’s also pretty easy to wait outside a toilet until there’s nobody in sight,”

    Really–if it is somewhere isolated maybe but a lone male hanging around the Ladies is not that inconspicuous. Try it and have your lawyer let us know how you got on.

    ” if toilets are particularly your thing. (Just look at your watch impatiently and roll your eyes if anyone looks your way. Other men will sympathise.)”

    Back to all men as sexists eh?

    “It’s just an excuse. The Muslims segregate the sexes for the same reason – because they believe that if you let men and women mix alone they’d get up to no good.”

    Getting up to no good sounds like some kind of volunteer thing NiV. Or are you saying there is no such thing as crime?

    ” But Western society demonstrates that it is rubbish. It’s segregation and sexual restriction that leaves men desperate enough to go to extreme measures to satisfy their desires – it’s sexual liberalism, familiarity, and easy availability of alternatives like porn that reduce the pressures on men to risk their life and liberty.

    The word you are missing NiV is evil. The idea that easy availability of sex=no more sex crime Is tripe. It might drop the pressure in some cases . But process predators who enjoy rape, humiliation and even murder aren’t going to be care about easy sex.

    “Most people live in houses with only a single toilet, shared by men and women.”

    Absolutely irrelevant unless you come from a family of sex crims.

    ” The last time a workman came round to fix my mother’s central heating, he asked to use her loo. Guy alone in the house with a woman alert! Guy going into a woman’s toilet alert! But nothing untoward happened. He even left the toilet seat down when he was finished!”

    Perhaps he–like most but not all men–wasn’t a sex criminal. Or at least not one who preys on elderly women.

    “It’s an irrational fear.”

    No it isn’t.

    ” It’s a classic use of the Group A/Group B trick. You want to discriminate against Group A, but can’t think of any justification for doing so. So you find a Group B that everybody agree should be discriminated against, that overlaps with Group A, and then you demand restrictions on Group A to prevent the damage done by Group B.”

    More waffle. TGs with dicks attached (which means any male who wants to) going in the Ladies are a invite for crims to extend their hunting grounds by allowing easy access to areas previously not so easy or accessible.

    “Heterosexual men” and “rapists” overlap,”

    The majority of rapists–if you factor in jailhouses and dear imported RoP swimming pool fans are just as likely sodomitic.

    “so you should treat all heterosexual men as rapists to prevent rape”

    Errr….no. Lets treat rapists as rapists instead eh. And not increase the danger factor for women.

    . “It’s deranged. But to the deranged it seems to make perfect sense, because all they can see is the desired outcome being achieved. Group A got stamped on, and that’s all that matters.”

    You are talking about your own delusions now.

  108. The problem I have with your claim is that it is self-serving: a post-fact explanation for not believing a reasonable statement about a very common situation.

    Not quite – I have no dog in the fight, while Jenner does. He is seeking to justify (to others, and possibly to himself) a dramatic life change. To the extent I care (not very much), I am seeking to understand why he might do such a thing. I don’t necessarily disbelieve him – I just recognize self-serving statements (particularly of un-observable mental states) as not proving very much.

  109. @NiV: “The Marxists have this technique in which they use some sympathy-inspiring group to justify their demands for power over society. They started off with the poor. They’ve done it with the disabled, blacks, gays, women, and now the transgender. In each case, they portray the right-wing as sexist, racist, homophobic bigots persecuting a vulnerable minority, so they need to institute restrictions on society to combat them. The minorities are grateful for the support, society sees the left as the “caring” side of every argument, and cite every example they can find of the right-wingers making sexist/racist/etc. statements to justify their claims, which neutral observers tend to be convinced by. Hence their success in the culture wars.

    The way to fight it is to make clear that those minorities best interests are actually served by right-wing policies, and right-wingers care too. But too many right-wingers can be predictably relied upon to attack not the Marxist authoritarians, but the minority group they’re hiding behind.”

    Fair enough, I can see the logic. Its certainly true that the Left have no real love for the people whose rights they espouse, they throw them under the bus when they are no longer of any use. Look at the reaction to the white working classes decision to vote for Brexit. I’d hazard a guess that gays are the next on the chopping block, they’re starting to get a bit uppity about the Lefts current love of people who like throwing gays off tall buildings.

    However this isn’t something that happens overnight. How long has the Left allegedly fought for the ‘working man’ and how long has it taken for the working man to realise they couldn’t give a stuff for him? Decades, in fact a century. So how exactly does it aid the Right to merely roll over every time the Left get a new pet identity group they wish to use as a front for their power grab over society? Every time one gives in, they move on to something else. There is no winning by appeasing, and hoping the the identity group will be more grateful to those who merely acquiesced rather than those actively espousing their cause.

    I can understand your logic, but I can’t see a mechanism by which the Right can win by using your method. Merely ceding more and more ground to your opponent does not seem to be a winning strategy to me.

  110. NiV – “OK. Show me yours maths. What’s the p-value on its significance?”

    Maths? Now you’re bullsh!tting us all. I don’t need to prove you have nothing. You have nothing. If you want to make a heroic claim, you need some evidence. Good evidence. I do not need to prove you do not much less perform a confidence test on it. I simply need to point out you have no evidence. You do not.

    “When you’ve produced the maths to prove your claim above, we’ll see whose fantasy is more important than scientific reality.”

    Again you are just bullsh!tting for the sake of it.

    “True. As I said, there are probably many variants with many different genetic causes. A break anywhere in the chain of signalling hormones could cause a similar effect.”

    Probably? You mean you do not have proof? We do not know what causes this problem. The sample size is too small. It does not look genetic. It looks psychological.

    “It’s pretty clear from your response that even if someone found more links, you’d deny them.”

    Find some evidence and we will see. Until then you are just adding your usually intellectually vacuous and dishonest ad hom to your usual spurious tranny love-in.

    “It’s not a mental illness – they’re only deeply unhappy because of people like you.”

    It is clearly a mentally illness and there is no evidence that people “like me” contribute in any way to their unhappiness. People are unhappy when they cannot cope. You may encourage them to look outwards to find a scapegoat for that unhappiness, but it will still be there even if I am not. Which is why transsexuals are unhappy in other countries with more tolerant cultures, why they are not getting less unhappy as time goes on and why their suicide rate is so high.

    “When right-wing dissidents got put in mental hospitals under the Soviet regime, I’m sure they were “deeply unhappy” too. According to the left, being right-wing is a mental illness too. Do you really want to set a precedent in the use those tactics?”

    As if you are not using it already.

    “And gays, trans, and other dissidents have had their soup spat in for the past four thousand years. Do you think that makes you popular?”

    Well yes. It is irrelevant. Heterosexuals have had a good look at their attitudes and decided it is time to play nice. The Pink Lobby has misinterpreted this as a chance for them to kick the cr@p out of some people they do not like.

    “So you can get on with your own bullying undisturbed?”

    Undoubtedly. When I come looking to bully someone I do not expect anything but hostility and resistance. Nor do I apologise after. Why Dave thinks otherwise escapes me.

    “Yes. Trans people know that their experiences are genuine, but here you are telling them that they’re lies, and forcing them to repeat those lies themselves. It’s a generic authoritarian technique – the communists were only the latest users of it.”

    And people who think they are Napoleon are to be encouraged? How about people who think they are dead?

    What about that man who phoned into the BBC and said his daughters love their sexual abuse? I am sure that view was true to him. What should we do about that? Is it reasonable to require repentance and understanding as a condition of parole?

Leave a Reply

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