Hmm, well, yes

Rape and abuse victims in women-only refuges face being looked after by biological men after England’s biggest group of women’s shelters decided to review its ban on transgender staff.

The move, which could overturn almost half a century of refuges being run by women for women, was described by some feminists last night as the most significant erosion of female spaces yet.

It comes after the government promised to consult on letting people change sex on demand. Activists insist that “self-declared” transgender women — most of whom retain male organs — should be allowed to enter and work in woman-only spaces.

Interesting clash of demands then. Very interesting, given that we’ve at least one claim of a trans woman raping while imprisoned – in a women’s jail – while serving a sentence for rape. I think I’ve recalled that correctly.

Underlying this though is something more serious. I’ve no dog in this specific fight, doesn’t bother me either way. But the serious bit is akin to Blair’s decision to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor. Quickly reversed, as the post is so written into the structure of the law and society. Equally so here. Change eh definition of male and female and there’s a hell of a lot of other things which also need to be changed. And no real guide as to what the correct change should be.

120 comments on “Hmm, well, yes

  1. Do you have a functional penis? You do? You’re male.

    Commit to your premise and wield those scissors or piss off.

    I believe that would solve the dilemma.

  2. @BiC,

    You shouldn’t worry because it looks increasingly like actual women will be banned from public spaces, especially if they are showing anything likely to excite a male. It’s almost as if we are experiencing a “pincer movement” on liberty, especially that of women, from two groups who are unexpectedly useful to each other.

  3. Have a care Tim. NiV likes a lie in on a Sunday. Even Social Justice Warriors need the occasional R&R.

  4. There are at least four levels for looking at whether someone is something or not.

    Does the objective reality say that they are women?

    Are they accepted by society as women?

    Do they live as women in their every day lives?

    Do they think they are women?

    The feminist movement has, along with the rest of the Left, rejected the first three and pretty much the last one as well. There is no test to see whether they really do think they are women. A simple declaration is enough.

    It is the least rigorous test imaginable. I could claim I am the Lindburgh baby with as much credibility.

  5. If I can ‘self declare’ as a woman, despite not being one, or having any op to cut various bits off, and no one can point out the fact that I’m not a woman, or indeed that I used to be a man at all, and must all treat me exactly as what I say I am, then why can’t I self declare as anyone I so choose, and everyone has to accept that I am now that person, and always have been?

    Can I self declare as the Prime Minister (whoever that might be, male or female, extra points if female of course)? And everyone must treat me as the Prime Minister, open the gates at Downing Street for me, let me wander into the HoP, do PMs question time, go over to Brussels and beat Jean Claude Junker to a pulp?

    If not, why not? Its all in my head, being a woman, being Prime Minister, whats the difference?

  6. BiI: There’s no such thing as peak cuntery. It has an infinite scale. Although women’s refuges can be nests of feminist idiocy they fulfil an important social role, so the TG brigade can just go forth & multiply like a mayfly (yes, I know the ‘multiply’ bit seems odd in this context).

  7. “If not, why not? Its all in my head, being a woman, being Prime Minister, whats the difference?”

    If being Prime Minister was all in the head, you could pick it up with a brain scan of the head.

    http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00325-0/fulltext

    Our results show that the white matter microstructure pattern in untreated MtF transsexuals falls halfway between the pattern of male and female controls. The nature of these differences suggests that some fasciculi do not complete the masculinization process in MtF transsexuals during brain development.

  8. “If being Prime Minister was all in the head, you could pick it up with a brain scan of the head.”

    OK, so you’re all for brain scans of people who claim to be transsexual before they’re recognised as such then, I presume?

  9. “As usual your hard-sought out scientistico cockrot doesn’t cut it.”

    Don’t believe in science? Fair enough. So long as you’re open about it.

    “But this does:”

    You think so? The police disagree.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/07/health/transgender-bathroom-law-facts-myths/index.html

    As of March 2017, 19 states, the District of Columbia and more than 200 municipalities have anti-discrimination laws and ordinances allowing transgender people to use public facilities that correspond to their gender identity.

    CNN found one case of a Seattle man who allegedly undressed in a women’s locker room in 2016, citing Washington’s anti-discrimination law as motivation.
    Otherwise, whenever the topic comes up in the news, prosecutors, law enforcement agencies and state human rights commissions have consistently denied that there is any correlation between such policies and a spike in assaults.
    CNN reached out to 20 law enforcement agencies in states with anti-discrimination policies covering gender identity. None who answered reported any bathroom assaults after the policies took effect.

    Michael Dunton, chief records clerk of Rhode Island’s Cranston Police Department, told CNN his department was “hard-pressed” to find such a case: “We track our sex offenders very carefully and we haven’t seen any instance of sexual predators assaulting in bathrooms.”

    In Maine, which has had gender identity protections in its state civil rights law for more than 11 years, the state Human Rights Commission was unaware of a single incident.

    “I know there is a lot of anxiety associated with this issue, but it seems to be based on fear rather than facts. Given this, it is really disheartening to see so many states (and now our federal government) choose to treat people who are transgender with what looks like hatred,” Maine Human Rights Commission Executive Director Amy Sneirson said.

    More common, civil rights groups say, are reports of transgender people being assaulted in bathrooms that don’t match their gender identity.

    In one of the largest surveys of transgender and gender non-conforming Americans ever conducted, 70% of respondents reported being denied access, verbally harassed, or physically assaulted in public restrooms. The survey, conducted by UCLA’s Williams Institute in 2013 before the nation’s capital passed anti-discrimination protections, built on previous research with similar outcomes.

    So tell me, *why* do you think your anecdotes and scare-mogering speculation “cut it”, but comprehensive statistics compiled by the police don’t? What leads you to accept one and not the other?

  10. “OK, so you’re all for brain scans of people who claim to be transsexual before they’re recognised as such then, I presume?”

    It would be one way to resolve disputes, yes.

    But it’s the same as deciding whether someone is introverted or extroverted. You can tell the difference from monitoring the brain’s dopamine/acetylcholine response in a brain scanner, but it’s an expensive way to do what can more easily be determined by just asking them.

    Declaring yourself transgender has a huge social cost and impact on health, and is an extraordinarily expensive way of achieving sexual kicks that are far more easily and cheaply obtained in other ways. If you want to see girls in the showers, the internet has high-definition video. You can pause and rewind the good bits! Or for that matter, you can simply pay a bunch of girls to take a shower with you. You’d have to be nuts to think pretending to be transgender was a good way of achieving that!

    It would be like pretending to be wheelchair-bound just so you could get to park in the ‘Disabled’ parking bays near the shops. Should shops have doctors on standby to check that the people parked there are really disabled?

  11. Let’s be honest, NiV. Your long quote there is simply a collection of anecdotes, isn’t it? As the evidence in these sort of matters tend to be. The question is, how selective are the anecdotes?

    “CNN reached out to 20 law enforcement agencies in states with anti-discrimination policies covering gender identity. None who answered reported any bathroom assaults after the policies took effect.”

    Hardly seems to square with;

    “In one of the largest surveys of transgender and gender non-conforming Americans ever conducted, 70% of respondents reported being denied access, verbally harassed, or physically assaulted in public restrooms.”

    Or do you think when government institutes a “policy”, 100% of the public take note of it & adhere to it?

  12. “In one of the largest surveys of transgender and gender non-conforming Americans ever conducted,”

    A self selected sample of a vanishingly small minority. Because they sure ain’t sampling a random sample of the public. Coming up to Joe Doe on the street & asking “Are you transgendered & have you suffered discrimination?”
    Not if they want to keep their dentition intact, they’re not.

  13. “You’d have to be nuts to think pretending to be transgender was a good way of achieving that!”

    But it’s an excellent way for boring, comfortably-well-off and bored middle-class white kids to get lots and LOTS of attention and money lavished on their every whim, and also to gain oppression points when the current victimhood poker system has dealt them the worst possible hand.

  14. “Declaring yourself transgender has a huge social cost and impact on health, and is an extraordinarily expensive way of achieving sexual kicks that are far more easily and cheaply obtained in other ways.”

    The issue isn’t with the 1/65,000 (illustrating how tiny the actual real issue is – there aren’t many other pursuits of that small a number of people that make repeated daily headlines) that really do get bits chopped or pumped and believe themselves to have changed sex. It’s the fact that we now set a low bar for defining someone as having had a sex change – their own statement, perhaps backed up by a wig and some lipstick. That is subject to abuse.

    Sensible bathroom laws (not needed until recently, you will note, this was a socially-enforced norm with exceptions liberally made for parents and children) would recognise someone’s “officially recognised” sex (including post-transition), rather than deliberately pissing off all six actual trannies in North Carolina.

    Your pic was hilarious though.

  15. “Hardly seems to square with;”

    70% of a small number is a small number. And the police were talking about women being assaulted by men. I kinda doubt that there were zero assaults of women by cis-women in bathrooms…

    Anyway, here are some more “anecdotes”.

    About half of the U.S. population lives in a city or state that has a transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination law. Here are what police officials from places with these laws say about whether or not these laws threaten public safety:

    Spokespeople from the Des Moines, Albuquerque, Baltimore San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York city police departments said they knew of no problems in facilities relating to California and New York City’s non-discrimination laws – which have all been in place for over a decade.

    The Des Moines (Iowa) Police Department said “We have not seen that.” when asked if they there were any cases of sexual assault related to the state’s non-discrimination statute, passed in 2007.

    The Cambridge (Massachusetts) Police Superintendent said “there have been no incidents of men dressing up as women to commit crimes in female bathrooms and using the city ordinance as a defense.”

    Rehoboth, Delaware Police Chief Keith Banks said, “We’ve had no concerns on this and no complaints have been made, and we have observed none,”concerning Delaware’s non-discrimination law.

    The Minneapolis Police Department said that fears about sexual assault are “not even remotely” a problem, and the notion of men posing as transgender women to enter women’s restrooms to commit sex crimes “sounds a little silly.” Minneapolis was the first city to pass a transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination law over 40 years ago, in 1975.

    The Las Vegas Police Department was asked if they had seen any cases of sexual assault related to the state’s non-discrimination statutes. Their response? “The answer would be no.”

    The Albuquerque Police Department said, “We are unaware of any cases of assault” due to New Mexico’s non-discrimination law, which passed in 2003. 7

    A Portland, Oregon Police Department representative said, “I have never heard of any issues” of assault relating to the state’s non-discrimination statute, which passed in 2007.

    Detective Nicole Monroe, a public information officer with the Baltimore Police Department, said worries about transgender-inclusive policies are “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” Baltimore passed its law in 2002 and Maryland passed a state law in 2014.

    https://transequality.org/what-experts-say

    Proponents of the bill have argued that the bathroom restrictions are needed to deter sexual predators from using trans-inclusive policies to enter bathrooms of the opposite sex. But law enforcement officials representing cities where officials have enacted policies to outline transgender residents’ right to use public bathrooms of their choice said on Tuesday that there’s simply no evidence to back up those claims.

    “I asked my department to go through the record. What we found is this: There were no known incidents of bathroom assaults performed by men posing as transgender women,” San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said Tuesday. “I am a believer that if you propose a bill to address a criminal justice concern, it is important to determine if there is an actual problem you are trying to solve.”

    https://www.texastribune.org/2017/07/25/law-enforcement-comes-out-against-texas-bathroom-bill/

  16. “The issue isn’t with the 1/65,000 (illustrating how tiny the actual real issue is – there aren’t many other pursuits of that small a number of people that make repeated daily headlines)”

    These guys estimate about 1/256. (That’s 0.4%.)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5227946/

    And these found 1.2%
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X13007532

    For comparison, there are about 8.5 million Israelis in a global population of 7.6 billion humans. That’s 0.1%. Plenty of headlines about Israel, though…

  17. “So tell me, *why* do you think your anecdotes and scare-mogering speculation “cut it”, but comprehensive statistics compiled by the police don’t? What leads you to accept one and not the other?”

    The police are arch-liars who have been told to peddle the trannie line by their political masters. If you likewise think CNN is a good source for truth–esp in SJW-influenced matters …well you are naïve if not downright foolish. Which of course you are.

    And photos and case-histories of actual evildoers are not “anecdotal” in any sense other than a deceitful attempt to claim a supposed lack of scientistic “rigour” (apart from the rigor mortis of the dead victims of course).

    Most of the evidence in court –CSI bullshit aside *–is “anecdotal”. Should it all be discounted on that basis?

    Glad to have rattled you NiV.

    * Numerous science shibboloths –DNA etc are up for question. And of course there is the question of forensic incompetence and forensic malice. For pay, personal reasons and political connections. As with the very many dodgy inquests within the Clinton Crime family’s orbit. So –theory aside–the reality of “science” is far from the foundation of ultimate truth you seek to suckle on.

  18. “If being Prime Minister was all in the head, you could pick it up with a brain scan of the head.”

    So if you believe you are King Arthur and need to save the world by doing various things as told to you by the voices in your head (as someone I know genuinely does believe when he’s not on some serious anti-psychotic medication), and all that shows up on a brain scan, then we have to not section and forcibly medicate him, we have to say ‘Yes Colin you are indeed King Arthur, and its very kind of you to save the world, what are the voices telling you to do, and how can we help?’

  19. Meat and two veg = Male
    Meat and no veg = Eunuch
    No meat no veg = Emasculated Male
    Emasculated Male = Gashed
    Gash = Cunt
    CUNT = an unpleasant or stupid person.

    Et cetera (in English; /ɛtˈsɛtərə/; Latin pronunciation: [ɛt ˈkeːtɛra]), abbreviated to etc., etc, &c., or &c,[1][2] is a Latin expression that is used in English to mean “and other similar things”, or “and so forth”

  20. We must change the world! Activists* insist!

    So much flows from ‘Activists insist.’

    *Two guys, living in their mothers’ basements, with twitter accounts, constitutes ‘Activists.’

    The Legacy Press, pursuing their CM agenda of destroying Western Civilization, is happy to publish their sedition.

  21. “So if you believe you are King Arthur and need to save the world by doing various things as told to you by the voices in your head (as someone I know genuinely does believe when he’s not on some serious anti-psychotic medication), and all that shows up on a brain scan, then we have to not section and forcibly medicate him”

    You only section somebody if they are a serious danger to themselves or others, and don’t have the mental competence to decide rationally for themselves. Thinking you’re King Arthur isn’t dangerous.

    On the other hand, transphobia is technically a delusional system – an incorrect belief immune to any amount of contrary evidence – and constitutes a potential danger to others, in the form of transphobic violence and assaults. So by your argument, it’s justifiable to section and forcibly medicate transphobes?

    So much for freedom of belief.

  22. “*sees long list of comments* *sees NiV’s handle* *sighs*”

    I thought that was the idea of posting yet another story about TGs?

    “We must change the world! Activists* insist! “

    We must keep the world the same! Activists* insist!

  23. “You only section somebody if they are a serious danger to themselves or others, and don’t have the mental competence to decide rationally for themselves. Thinking you’re King Arthur isn’t dangerous.”

    Well, wishing to harm yourself by chopping bits off would count as a danger to themselves I’d say. And demanding to be called a woman when you have a meat and two veg is definitely delusional, as you are demanding that physical reality be ignored. Demanding to be called a woman after the meat and two veg is removed is more rational as at least you’ve gone through with the op and the physical evidence of maleness is gone. But while its still there, demanding it be ignored is entirely delusional. Its like saying ‘I hate my leg, I’m going to have it amputated. But until it is I demand you treat me as a one legged disabled man’.

    In fact thats quite a good analogy. If I self declare as ‘disabled’, despite having all my faculties, can I use the disabled parking spaces? And claim disability allowance?

    This is all nonsense that can be easily solved. I have no problem accepting that some people ( a very small number of people, but more than zero) consider themselves to be the wrong gender. Fair enough. If they are so convinced of that fact that they are prepared to go through with the op, then I have no problem that there should be some legal system for saying ‘This person is now X instead of Y’ Having your bits rearranged is a pretty hefty commitment to your delusions, and deserves some sort of recognition.

    Putting on a dress and some lippy doesn’t deserve anything. Its pure attention seeking and most likely mental illness as well.

  24. “These guys estimate about 1/256. ”

    My number is for actual transsexuals in the UK.

    That might be low for the best definition, but “I once fantasised about what sex would feel like as the other sex” is equally a lobby-based definition invented for the purposes of appearing to be lobbying on behalf of a bigger group.

  25. And again, the “toilet terrors” has absolutely nothing to do with trannies and everything to do with not giving perverts free rein to use their invented tranny-status as a defence. The fact that it doesn’t happen much shows both “sides” need to get a grip.

  26. Fuck off Tony.

    “Anyone who trusts plod to provide accurate, apolitical information is an arsehole.”

    What you mean is: “Anyone who trusts anyone who tells me anything I disagree with is an arsehole”

    “And demanding to be called a woman when you have a meat and two veg is definitely delusional, as you are demanding that physical reality be ignored.”

    No! I’m demanding that physical reality is respected! The physical reality is that some people have female-pattern brains with male-pattern genitals. The delusion is that because the brain is not open to inspection, it therefore doesn’t exist!

    Dysphoria *isn’t* a delusion – people with it are very clear about the state of their body. Transphobia *is*.

    So long as it’s a harmless one, it shouldn’t be the subject of compulsory medication. But as soon as you start imprisoning people and forcibly medicating them simply for holding what you consider to be incorrect beliefs, we’re on an extremely dangerous path.

    “Its like saying ‘I hate my leg, I’m going to have it amputated. But until it is I demand you treat me as a one legged disabled man’.”

    It’s like being born without legs, and insisting that some be added, and then demanding that you be treated as a two-legged person.

    “Demanding to be called a woman after the meat and two veg is removed is more rational as at least you’ve gone through with the op and the physical evidence of maleness is gone. But while its still there, demanding it be ignored is entirely delusional.”

    That’s because you define “man” and “woman” by the genitals alone. But there are lots of sex-linked anatomical characteristics besides genitals, and they can be inconsistent. The law defines it in terms of the brain instead. It’s not a delusion, just a different definition.

    And one big problem with this is that the medics *won’t* perform SRS until you’ve lived in your new gender for a year or two. So even for those with severe enough dysphoria to need surgery, you still have a period when they’re required to act as a woman with their original genitals.

    Another problem is that by making the genitals the deciding criteria, you have to inspect genitals to police the segregation. You have to check every woman going into the toilets to make sure she has the right genitals before you can let her in. Who would want that job?

  27. If someone presents facts, I’ll acknowledge them, but plod are just lying bastards. They stopped being public servants along time ago, now they are simply servants of their political masters, hate crimes are way more important than real crimes.

  28. “Brain scans don’t mean anything.”

    Not if they tell you something they don’t like, you mean.

    “If someone presents facts, I’ll acknowledge them”

    And what if someone presents *no* facts, just their unsupported but heartfelt assertions?

    The feature that distinguishes ‘conspiracy theories’ as beliefs is that they explain the total and utter lack of evidence for them, and all the contrary evidence against them, by hypothesising that there is a ‘cover up’ in which a conspiracy of ‘enemies’ colludes to lie and hide the truth. Since a sufficiently powerful conspiracy would indeed result in a world where there was no evidence for their beliefs, they take the absence of evidence as confirmation that their beliefs are true.

    Superficially, they have a point. Conspiracies by the authorities are certainly possible. But there is a major danger with this line of reasoning of getting trapped in delusions. Anything that risks blanket-excluding any evidence against it becomes unfalsifiable. Evidence is irrelevant, and *any* belief can be sustained, no matter how crazy.

    So you can’t simply rely on the *possibility* of a conspiracy, you need to present actual evidence that there *is* one. You need evidence for your beliefs, you need to explain any evidence against them, and if that explanation involves a conspiracy by the authorities to hide the truth, you need *positive evidence* that there actually *is* one.

    Got any?

  29. But as soon as you start imprisoning people and forcibly medicating them simply for holding what you consider to be incorrect beliefs, we’re on an extremely dangerous path

    I look at a person with male genitalia, who declares themselves to be a woman.
    I believe them to be a man and address them as such.
    In Canada, using the wrong pronoun is a criminal act and a hate crime. It will probably be the same here in Blighty soon if it isn’t already classed as a hate crime.
    I could then go to jail for believing that this person, who has a dick, is a man.
    So their belief that they are a woman, supercedes my belief, backed by easily available evidence in reality.

    I agree, we have a serious problem.

  30. In the link I provided, the Victorian police clearly lied about the extent of Sudanese crime, their political masters do not want to acknowledge that accepting ‘refugees’ from Africa is dentrimental to the safety of ordinary citizens and plod is happy to play along because they don’t give a toss about hard working people who pay their salaries.

  31. “I believe them to be a man and address them as such.”

    Sure. If I *believe* transphobes are sub-human defectives, I can address them as such. We should have freedom of belief, and freedom of speech. But so do the people who disagree with us, and regard *us* with contempt and derision.

    “In Canada, using the wrong pronoun is a criminal act and a hate crime. It will probably be the same here in Blighty soon if it isn’t already classed as a hate crime.”

    It depends. Are you doing it to stand up for your personal beliefs, or are you doing it to be deliberately nasty, and make somebody miserable, because you don’t like what they are and what they stand for?

    Is it OK to call a black man “monkey boy” because you believe that all black people are less evolved that whate people? Is is OK for someone to call your wife or daughter a “whore”, because they believe that a woman in a miniskirt is asking to be raped? Is it OK to repeatedly and consistently call a Christian work colleague a “deluded sky-fairy believer”, if you sincerely believe that’s what they are? Is it OK to call all conservatives “Fascists” if you believe that Facism/Nazism and the right wing are synonymous?

    Free speech and freedom of belief go both ways, and should not be interfered with. But we all need the voluntary cooperation of our neighbours in many other things, and for those, politeness is the better policy. While it shouldn’t be illegal to be impolite / offensive, even to people who don’t deserve it, that doesn’t mean it can’t have consequences.

    I don’t have a problem with people who use the wrong pronoun, so long as they don’t have a problem with everyone else calling them anything they like, no matter how offensive.

  32. “That’s because you define “man” and “woman” by the genitals alone. But there are lots of sex-linked anatomical characteristics besides genitals, and they can be inconsistent. The law defines it in terms of the brain instead. It’s not a delusion, just a different definition.”

    But there is no brain scan when Bill turns up at work and demands to be called Betty. We take him (her/it) at his word. So you have no idea how many people are just attention seekers who have discovered a way of making everyone take notice of them and make themselves ‘special’, how many are genuinely mentally ill, and how many have genuine gender disconnects. We’re just told we have to treat them all exactly the same.

    At least meat and two veg/no meat and two veg is nice and simple. And rational, and not open to misinterpretation.

    Basically the real sufferers here are going to be thrown under the bus of the wave of nutters who will jump on a bandwagon, any bandwagon, if it means someone gives them attention and special treatment. If you wish to help the real transgenders then ensuring that they are not swamped in a tsunami of fakers is actually very important. If its just a case of signalling your virtue with #Iluvtrans then you don’t really care at all about the genuine trans people and just want to make yourself look good.

    We all know nutters will crawl out of the woodwork to claim they have been affected whatever is the fashionable cause du jour, whether its alien abductions, satanic abuse, being touched up by a combination of every 70s pop star and politician, whatever. Transgenderism is another thing that will attract nutters like moths to a flame. And destroy anything that could be done to help people who have a genuine problem, all because people like you refuse to accept that many people are liars and fakers, and we need to (dread word) discriminate between the liars and mentally ill, and those who are genuine.

  33. “In the link I provided, the Victorian police clearly lied about the extent of Sudanese crime,”

    And *actual evidence* of the lies was presented. The actual *statistics* were given.

    If someone wants to dig out the actual number of crimes before and after the bathroom legislation, I’d be interested. Until then, you’re just making it up.

  34. Nope, not all. I just wouldn’t be basing my argument on questionable science. I have no dog in this fight, however, there is a very strong argument that brain mapping is just a fancier version of phenology. Particularly when you factor in brain plasticity and the evidence of adaptation following brain injuries. After 4 years studying psychology there’s very little evidence there to convince me that you can generalise brain activity across populations. It comes across as a crutch to pin beliefs to without much evidence to back it.

  35. Observation (mostly off topic):

    There seems to be an accepted and self-reinforcing social norm in comments on this blog. They’ve almost always 1 to 3 paragraphs, and they’re often either witty and/or well informed.

    @NiV: Try posting shorter comments, I (for one) would start reading them again and I think you’d get called boring and monomaniacal less often.

  36. “I don’t have a problem with people who use the wrong pronoun, so long as they don’t have a problem with everyone else calling them anything they like, no matter how offensive.”

    Mighty white of you NiV. But we are not just talking about nasty names. We are–as the two “anecdotal” vids I linked to show — talking about rape, molestation, assault and murder. And the access of dangerous mental cases to areas frequented by not just adult women but little girls. Under the banner of the TG tripe you endorse.

    You can’t of course still claim to be some kind of Libertarian and support Marxist subjectivist (you’re a woman because you say you are) cockrot. So you have to hunt out every tiny nugget of scientistical tripe –and nothing that you have shown so far is sufficient to PROVE a thing–to try and claim that there is some kind of support for your views. And as a -very selective-bleeding heart, which is the reason you are an SJW even tho’ you claim otherwise, you are all burned up with compassion for the severely troubled but give not a shit for women and girls. Even when it is females themselves stating their fears as a result of horrific crimes already committed.

    Just anecdotes say the Great NiV. Nothing to worry –ie nothing for NiV– to worry about.

  37. “We’re just told we have to treat them all exactly the same.”

    And why is that a problem?

    If someone says they’re vegetarian, we don’t subject them to a lie-detector test to see if they’re just trying to jump on a trendy bandwagon. We assume people are honest by default, unless there’s good reason to think otherwise.

    “At least meat and two veg/no meat and two veg is nice and simple. And rational, and not open to misinterpretation.”

    So if someone loses their genitals in a car accident, they legally become a woman? That’s rational?

    “Basically the real sufferers here are going to be thrown under the bus of the wave of nutters who will jump on a bandwagon”

    The totally imaginary wave?

    We’ve had the equivalent of ‘bathroom laws’ in the UK since 2010. Anyone noticed a ‘wave’?

    “We all know nutters will crawl out of the woodwork to claim they have been affected whatever is the fashionable cause du jour, whether its alien abductions, satanic abuse, being touched up by a combination of every 70s pop star and politician, whatever.”

    Same goes for transgender fear. “I was looked at in the toilets by a transgender woman! Shock!”.

    Fear of TGs is suddenly very trendy on the right. You think the same human behaviour doesn’t apply?

    “And destroy anything that could be done to help people who have a genuine problem, all because people like you refuse to accept that many people are liars and fakers, and we need to (dread word) discriminate between the liars and mentally ill, and those who are genuine.”

    I agree! Absolutely! This is what I’m saying!

    We have to distinguish between the liars and the innocent. We don’t just condemn the entire class of people because there may be some liars among them.

    I don’t have a problem with making pervert peeping Tom’s illegal and prosecuting them. I do have a problem with putting the boot down on entirely innocent people, just because there’s an overlap.

    There are lots of cis-gender perverts, liars, fakers, and criminals. Should we therefore clamp down on all the cis-gender, because some of them are perverts? Obviously not! So why accept this same deranged logic for the trans-gender?

  38. “We must keep the world the same! Activists* insist!”

    Your interest in destroying Western Civilization has been noted.

  39. Fascinating stuff isnt it really, in just a few years chopping your cock off is the new normal, a new species has been invented , so the world has to conform to their demands.

    It used to be Alien invasion that kids had to worry about…the fucking aliens are here with us and are taking over.

  40. “Your interest in destroying Western Civilization has been noted.”

    The strength of Western civilisation is that it is adaptable. Societies change. That’s why we’re not 1970s socialists any more. That’s why we’re not Victorians any more. That’s why we’re not medieval priests and peasants any more. That’s why women have the vote, and we don’t own slaves, or burn witches and Catholics. That’s why we have all the advantages of the industrial revolution.

    If you consider all change to be “destroying Western civilisation”, then Western civilisation was destroyed about 25 years after it began.

  41. “Fascinating stuff isnt it really, in just a few years chopping your cock off is the new normal, a new species has been invented , so the world has to conform to their demands.”

    That’s what the Islamic mullahs say about Western civilisation.

    No, you don’t have to conform to their demands. You don’t have to be transgender if you don’t want to be. But you *do* have to let other people do what they want to do, be what they want to be. And for people used to an authoritarian world where people are made to conform, that’s obviously quite a shock.

    But this is what classical liberalism – one of Western civilisation’s finest inventions – is all about.

  42. Rosemary West??? Rosemary West??? WTF has Rosemary West go to do with it?

    Because there have been female murderers we don’t have to worry about male ones being given new worlds to plunder???

    Esp as West like Myra Hindley was likely lead into it by a male. Be clear that I despise the femmi-squark that women evilists are ALWAYS lead into it by men. But it is fairly clear that without their vile counterparts neither West nor Hindley would have been sex murderesses in their own right. Not impossible but unlikely. They were probably a pair of unpleasant bitches but would most likely have not ended up where they did without making unfortunate hook ups.

    You are just rambling now NiV. The evidence of horrific doings by TGs is psyching you.

  43. NiV

    If people want to pretend that they transgender, that’s fine by me. What is not fine by me is such people insisting on special toilets, and major changes to the legal system.

    As for the differences in white matter in the brain, these could be a cause of transgenderism or they could be an effect of persistently holding false beliefs about oneself – much as London cabbies have slightly different brains to non-cabbies….

  44. NiV

    Out of curiosity if someone said they were a penguin, with no physical evidence to support their assertation, would you say they nevertheless had a right to be treated as a penguin? I expect their brains would show abnormalities. Look hard enough and you’d probably be able to point to bits of their brain looked a bit like bits of a penguin’s brain. Especially if that’s what you were looking to find.

    Does that mean we have a new sort of person? A need to champion perguin rights?

    Would you be a penguaphobe if you thought the person was just a bit deranged?

  45. “Esp as West like Myra Hindley was likely lead into it by a male. Be clear that I despise the femmi-squark that women evilists are ALWAYS lead into it by men.”

    … but you’ll agree with them as soon as it’s convenient to your argument to do so? You’ll even make excuses for Rosemary West if that helps your case? Hmm.

    “What is not fine by me is such people insisting on special toilets, and major changes to the legal system.”

    They’re *not* insisting on special toilets – they’re insisting on getting the same toilets as for anyone else of their gender. If you want to introduce new toilets to keep the transphobes happy, you’re welcome to. Most women don’t care.

    And the only reason major changes are required to the legal system is that discrimination based on utterly irrelevant characteristics is so deeply embedded in it. It was a major change to the legal system when we got rid of slavery, or gave women equal rights.

    The insistence is on doing the right thing. If that’s legally complicated, then it’s legally complicated. That’s no reason not to do it.

  46. “Out of curiosity if someone said they were a penguin, with no physical evidence to support their assertation, would you say they nevertheless had a right to be treated as a penguin?”

    If you said you were a human, and I had some bizarre belief that you were a penguin, would you have a right to be treated as human?

  47. You are not even making an attempt at logic now NiV just bullshit.

    That female evildoers exist is not a counter-argument about the dangers posed by male nutters in female bogs.

    That female evildoers–indeed ALL evildoers—moreover exist on a spectrum is also obvious by reference to case history. From those who were lead along by worse companions (tho’ still culpable) to those who exulted in their own inner-directed acting out of horrors.

    Again I ask WTF has that to do with anything let alone TGs in the women’s bog?

    Why did you mention West at all? Other than as a smokescreen of some sort.

  48. “NiV

    “Out of curiosity if someone said they were a penguin, with no physical evidence to support their assertation, would you say they nevertheless had a right to be treated as a penguin?”

    If you said you were a human, and I had some bizarre belief that you were a penguin, would you have a right to be treated as human?”

    OK, I can answer your question.

    Of course I would have a right to be treated as a human as self-evidently I would be a human.

    Now, can you answer my question?

  49. “You are not even making an attempt at logic now NiV just bullshit.”

    You’re not capable of recognising logic.

    “”That female evildoers exist is not a counter-argument about the dangers posed by male nutters in female bogs.

    Yes it is. Your argument is that males must be excluded from women’s bogs because some men are evil. You have listed some evil men to prove that some men are evil, and somehow think that validates your argument. If this was true, then it would also mean that females must be excluded from women’s bogs because some women are evil. Rosemary West is a demonstration that some women are evil. Therefore (so your logic goes) women must be excluded from women’s bogs.

    It’s called ‘Reductio ad Absurdam’.

    It’s very common for beginner students of logic to think that if the claimed conclusion is true, then the argument must be valid. This is not so. You can use logically invalid methods to come to true conclusions. The standard way of explaining that is to change the terms in the argument but keep the form of the argument the same. A valid method can only give true results from true premises. An invalid method can sometimes give false conclusions. Giving an example where the conclusion reached by the method is obviously false makes this clear.

    Usually, anyway. Some students can be a bit slow.

  50. “Of course I would have a right to be treated as a human as self-evidently I would be a human.”

    It’s not “self-evident” to me. “Self-evident” is usually a code phrase for “I believe this is unquestionably true, but I can’t think of an argument for it, so I’ll just say it’s ‘self evident’ in lieu of an argument.”

    The psychologists and psychiatrists don’t think TGs are deluded. The doctors don’t think they’re deluded. The neurologists and endocrinologists don’t think they’re deluded. The legislators don’t think they’re deluded. 87% of the UK population don’t think they’re deluded. It’s “self-evident” to everyone else that it’s not the TGs who are deluded, but the transphobes.

    So, assuming I think you’re a penguin, and irrespective of whether I’m right or not, or whether you’re right or not, do my beliefs override yours in how you get to be treated?

    If you’re criterion is “whoever is right”, then you need an additional objective criterion for deciding which of us is right. In the absence of any way of resolving that argument, do *I* get to decide how I can treat you, or do *you* get to decide how I can treat you?

    Or could it be that it it depends not on who believes what or who is right, but on whether the action or its restriction does either person any harm, as judged by the person themselves?

  51. “You’re not capable of recognising logic.”

    Personal invective from you NiV–those vids did get to you.

    “”That female evildoers exist is not a counter-argument about the dangers posed by male nutters in female bogs.

    “Yes it is. Your argument is that males must be excluded from women’s bogs because some men are evil.”

    Nonsense. Lots of evil men can be and are evil without being sex assaulters and/or murderers. There is no evidence that Hitler ever personally murdered anyone regardless of orders given . Nor is there any evidence he raped anyone. There is some vague suggestion that his claimed coprophilia was a contributing factor in the suicide of his –possible–girlfriend Geli Raubal but no “proof”.

    Evil has many manifestations chum. You are one of them yet I am sure you are not a rapist or paedo. Some men are evil in a manner that makes them a danger to women. No TGs anywhere near women ensures no danger. If your brainscan could determine which TGs are evil in a manner that is dangerous to women then you might get somewhere.

    But you can’t and you aren’t.

    ” You have listed some evil men to prove that some men are evil, and somehow think that validates your argument. If this was true, then it would also mean that females must be excluded from women’s bogs because some women are evil.”

    See above nitwit. Most Lezzer violence is part of their “relationships”. There are very, very few cases of lesbian attacks on random girls and adult women. It is not entirely unknown but it is vastly more rare than male on female attacks.

    “Rosemary West is a demonstration that some women are evil. Therefore (so your logic goes) women must be excluded from women’s bogs.~”

    Those reading please correct me if I’m false to fact here but Rose West didn’t attack any other women in a woman’s toilet. The number of attacks by women on women in bogs has likely been increased by drunken jealously in modern times but the number violent sex attacks by women on other women in Ladies toilets is very very very low.

    “It’s called ‘Reductio ad Absurdam’.”

    Absurdity has rarely been deployed in such massive quantity as you are doing here today NiV.

    “It’s very common for beginner students of logic to think that if the claimed conclusion is true, then the argument must be valid. This is not so. You can use logically invalid methods to come to true conclusions. The standard way of explaining that is to change the terms in the argument but keep the form of the argument the same. A valid method can only give true results from true premises. An invalid method can sometimes give false conclusions. Giving an example where the conclusion reached by the method is obviously false makes this clear.”

    If you want to confess NiV, see your Confessor, I can’t give you absolution.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhIz6wpFPrA

    “Usually, anyway. Some students can be a bit slow.”

    We’ve been trying for years and no end in sight.

  52. “Personal invective from you NiV–those vids did get to you.”

    I didn’t waste my time. I got the idea in the first 20 seconds. It’s an invalid argument.

    I’m well aware that there are evil rapists around. Most of them are cis-gender. Most of them managed to rape women without dressing up and sneaking into toilets. And had they chosen to do it in a toilet, none of them would have been stopped for a second by it being ‘forbidden’. They don’t lock the doors on public toilets, and criminals, by definition, don’t follow the rules.

    It’s like the Americans, thinking that declaring a “no gun zone” means nobody will get shot. It’s a level of stupidity beyond rational comprehension.

    “Lots of evil men can be and are evil without being sex assaulters and/or murderers.”

    Where the hell did that come from?! That’s not even in dispute!

    Do try to keep up.

  53. One of your problems, NiV, is you’re basing so many of your ideas on things that are counterfactual & illogical.
    Let’s take one of your claims, above. Transphobia is delusional. And presume you are using the word to mean what it says. Fear of transexuals or fear of transexulism.
    What’s delusional about that? It’s fairly obvious a lot of the people commenting here are transphobic. With good reason. What you’re advocating undermines the entire society they belong to. Which is based on sexual duality. Biological male & female. Rightly or wrongly, people don’t like their societies changed for them. To be compelled to accept things they don’t wish. A man demanding to be regarded & treated as a woman is a direct threat to them. There’s nothing illogical or delusional of fearing a threat.

    Worth mentioning that this is similar to some of the other buzzwords get brandished about. Islamaphobia. Homophobia. As if they’re ilnesses.
    There’s certainly nothing delusional about Islamaphobia. Quite a lot of people would recommend it. Nor homophobia if you find the concept of same-sex sex distasteful. They’re emotions need respecting not challanging. You don’t cure people of a well grounded fear of heights by slinging them off cliffs.

  54. Sure. If I *believe* transphobes are sub-human defectives, I can address them as such. We should have freedom of belief, and freedom of speech. But so do the people who disagree with us, and regard *us* with contempt and derision.

    Agreed. And their right to do so should be protected.

    It depends. Are you doing it to stand up for your personal beliefs, or are you doing it to be deliberately nasty, and make somebody miserable, because you don’t like what they are and what they stand for?

    I would do it because that’s what I believe. I try and avoid being deliberately nasty, because i’m not an arsehole.

    Is it OK to call a black man “monkey boy” because you believe that all black people are less evolved that whate people? Is is OK for someone to call your wife or daughter a “whore”, because they believe that a woman in a miniskirt is asking to be raped? Is it OK to repeatedly and consistently call a Christian work colleague a “deluded sky-fairy believer”, if you sincerely believe that’s what they are? Is it OK to call all conservatives “Fascists” if you believe that Facism/Nazism and the right wing are synonymous?

    Ok? No. Illegal, with possibility of criminal prosecution? No.
    Social convention and ostracism can keep people in line effectively.

    Free speech and freedom of belief go both ways, and should not be interfered with. But we all need the voluntary cooperation of our neighbours in many other things, and for those, politeness is the better policy. While it shouldn’t be illegal to be impolite / offensive, even to people who don’t deserve it, that doesn’t mean it can’t have consequences.

    I don’t have a problem with people who use the wrong pronoun, so long as they don’t have a problem with everyone else calling them anything they like, no matter how offensive.

    I think we are in agreement here. Amazingly.

    And since you seem to agree that people have the right to believe what they want, can you understand why people who believe that a person with a dick (that they consider a man) shouldn’t be allowed in the womens toilets…? (And maybe take the next step and understand why stating that these people need educating because they are ignorant scaredy bigots who just don’t get the “science” , might get people’s backs up)

    Apologies for wall o’text

  55. This isn’t about “transphobia”. It’s about whether or not one wishes to participate in other peoples’ game of “Let’s Pretend”. I choose not to participate. That doesn’t make me transphobic… It just means that in this particular instance, I choose for the delusions of other to remain their own.

  56. “And presume you are using the word to mean what it says.”

    In this case, I’m using it to describe all the guff people make up to try to justify their fear/dislike. If ‘dislike’ was all people here were claiming, I’d have no objection. It’s a fair point that this isn’t quite what the word means, and I’ll try to remember to be more precise in future.

    “It’s fairly obvious a lot of the people commenting here are transphobic. With good reason. What you’re advocating undermines the entire society they belong to.”

    It undermines the society they *used* to belong to.

    This is a problem that *every* generation goes through. Everyone grows up with a certain set of social norms being enforced, which they come to regard as ‘natural’ and ‘obvious’ and beyond question the only possible morality that any right-thinking society could have.

    Then society changes. As I said above, it changes continually and always has. Do you think the Victorian matrons were not equally horrified at all the women’s rights stuff? And visible ankles? Do you think the post-war generation were not shocked out of their minds at the “Swinging Sixties”? They thought Elvis Presley was outrageous! Do you think Mary Whitehouse of the Viewers and Listeners Association wouldn’t know exactly what you’re talking about?

    And do you think that the Islamic mullahs don’t know how you feel, seeing 1400 years of getting their way dissolve like sandcastles in the sea in the face of western culture’s rising tide? Democracy. Votes for women. Women driving cars. Women not wearing bags over their heads. Kids dancing, together, and watching TV, wearing jeans and T-shirts with American slogans on them. They’re sinful, debauched, and disrespectful of their ancestors’ culture. People being allowed to say what they want, believe what they want, and not get beheaded or flogged or stoned to death for it.

    I can certainly *understand* why they would feel the way they do about us. I don’t like them. I don’t agree with them. But we’ve just overturned their entire society at a rate that’s simply frightening to anyone who grew up in the old way.

    “Rightly or wrongly, people don’t like their societies changed for them. To be compelled to accept things they don’t wish.”

    I agree. And to a large extent I sympathise. But then, the entire *point* of social norms is to compel people to do things they hate and accept things they don’t wish. All the heretics and misfits throughout history have been forced to conform against their will. You’re just seeing the same system from the other end. It’s cold comfort to those caught in the gears from an early age to know that everyone will face it eventually, as society moves on.

    The aim of the libertarians is to minimise that feeling. By setting the rules as loose and permissive as possible, you minimise the number of people who are made to do stuff they don’t want to do. Society might not *like* the old ways, but it won’t stop you doing them, and living life how you want. But it means you in turn have to make as much room as possible for everyone else to live their lives as they choose, which means not imposing restrictions on them unnecessarily.

    The libertarians are opposed in this goal by the authoritarians, whose common creed is that society has the right and duty to make everyone live a certain way, for their own good and for the common good. Different subgroups of them differ violently in what they think that ‘certain way’ should be, but they never question that society has the right.

    The only time they might change their minds is when they suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of the social norm enforcement machine, and get some inkling of what the social misfits were moaning about.

    “A man demanding to be regarded & treated as a woman is a direct threat to them. There’s nothing illogical or delusional of fearing a threat.”

    It’s not a threat to anything they have a right to possess. They don’t get to command society. Society commands them. They think that just because they agreed with society’s dictates before, that they or people like them were in control, and that was fine. But they never were.

    If you take the authoritarian view, society commands something different now, and heretics from the new common social norms have no more right to object than victims of the old ones did. From a libertarian point of view, they have no right to impose on anyone else what gender they are internally, or force them to follow the gender stereotypes they dictate. You can be rude to them as you choose, if that causes no harm, but be prepared for any unnecessary unpleasantness to be met with unpleasantness.

    I don’t expect you to be happy with either. But libertarianism gives you a bit more freedom, and and a bit less risk.

  57. If I go out with a gal and one thing leads to another and we end up marrying, and years down the line I find my wife was (apparently) born a boy and named William, how am I to respond to that?

  58. Do you think the post-war generation were not shocked out of their minds at the “Swinging Sixties”? They thought Elvis Presley was outrageous!

    Well, that’s me convinced. Brb, away to get my dick chopped off.

  59. “And since you seem to agree that people have the right to believe what they want, can you understand why people who believe that a person with a dick (that they consider a man) shouldn’t be allowed in the womens toilets…?”

    Yes. And I can understand why some people think people who smoke shouldn’t be allowed into pubs, and farmers shouldn’t be allowed to hunt foxes, and pervy men shouldn’t be allowed to use pornography, and women shouldn’t be allowed to prostitute themselves, and drunkards shouldn’t be allowed to drink, and drug takers shouldn’t be allowed to take drugs, and sweet shops and burger vans shouldn’t be allowed near schools, and fat people shouldn’t be treated on the NHS…

    I understand the authoritarian impulse perfectly. People always *want* to make others live as they think they ought to. It’s for their own good, or the good of society.

    And as I say, I sympathise. But I still don’t think that society has that right, or that authoritarians can know what is best for everyone else; though I’m sure they genuinely think they do, and mean no harm. It’s a matter of principle, with me.

    “And maybe take the next step and understand why stating that these people need educating because they are ignorant scaredy bigots who just don’t get the “science” , might get people’s backs up”

    Fair point. When I started on this, I did actually make an attempt to do it in a friendly and non-confrontational way. But then Ecks decided to get in my face about it, and almost everyone else here supported him, so I said “fuck it” and followed suit.

    If you want to try a different way, I’m interested in hearing proposals.

    “Apologies for wall o’text”

    🙂

  60. I don’t know about anyone else but I’ve just started seeing

    NiV

    And just scrolling right on down.

    I’m saving time. I’m missing nothing.

    And I’ll be watching the Super Bowl later.

    No woopsies there.

    ‘cept maybe in the half-time show.

    But for the most part, big tough men smashing lumps out of each other in pursuit of an inflated pigskin, as men should do.

    Real men. Proper men. Beer drinking pizza eating wolf whistling macho men. The sort that really fit cheerleaders prefer.

  61. “If I go out with a gal and one thing leads to another and we end up marrying, and years down the line I find my wife was (apparently) born a boy and named William, how am I to respond to that?”

    Same way you would to any other secret.

    If a gal meets and marries a guy, and only then finds out he used to be a trainspotter how is she supposed to respond to that? By killing him?

    If a nice 1930s German gal meets and marries a guy, and only then discovers he’s Jewish how is she supposed to respond to that?

    If a nice Irish Catholic gal meets and marries a guy, and only then discovers he’s from a Protestant family, how is she supposed to respond to that?

    etc.

    One would hope that you would share your history and find out how your partner feels about it long before marrying. TGs sometimes consider not telling partners immediately, in the hopes of forming a relationship strong enough to survive the shock, rather than put people off up front and never get anyone. I don’t think it’s wise, or nice, but I’ve not been in that situation myself so I’m not going to judge. i certainly don’t think it’s worth killing someone over.

  62. @Tim W wrote:

    …Change eh definition of male and female and there’s a hell of a lot of other things which also need to be changed. And no real guide as to what the correct change should be.

    It’s akin to opening Pandora’s Box as is much middle-class socialists demand.

    Why our Gov’t & MPs don’t ignore them is damning indictment of their weakness and inability to use foresight and consider consequences and then act rationally and logically.

  63. Ackshually, NiV’s fundamental assumption is interesting.

    Wrong, but interesting. He cites Suffragists, Elvis, etc., implying shooting your kids full of hormones is just the cool new thing that you squares just better get used to.

    It’s the progressive view of history, the idea that history comes with a built-in directional arrow. Martin Luther King’s famous arc of the universe fantasy.

    But, of course, it’s just a fantasy. And a smug, lazy, ignorant, intellectually incoherent one at that. There is no such thing as capital-p Progress™. There’s no “right” and no “wrong” side of history.

    Not all social changes are good or desirable or inevitable – remember, burning children to appease Moloch was the hip new thing, once. The Khymer Rouge were the new kids on the block, once. We pretended Zimbabwe and then South Africa would become functioning civilised societies, once.

    The transgender cult isn’t even all that new. It’s much like previous death cults, such as Catharism, communism and radical environmentalism. The form and content is different, but the impulse is similar.

    Gnostics sought an escape from physical reality, which they supposed to be evil. Communists sought to escape the social reality of inevitable inequality. Radical greenies seek to escape civilisation, and return to an imagined never-was golden age of living in harmony with squirrels and spiders and schistosoma.

    These movements are best understood as social pathologies, born from moral and psychological failures of individuals.

    And yes, transgenderism is very much a death cult. By denying their own biology -right down to a sub-cellular level – and seeking to transmutate themselves into a different person using knives and drugs, the goal of the transgender is self-obliteration.

    And the sad prognosis of transgenderism is also death. Either literally, at their own hands, or genetically, through castration whether chemical or physical.

    Language is the software of the human brain, so it’s no coincidence that transgenders describe their given name as a deadname. The promise of personal transubstantiation is a powerful fantasy which doesn’t only appeal to autogynephiliacs looking to turn themselves into a fetish object, it’s also the siren song heard by posthumanists darkly dreaming of the technological Singularity.

    Thankfully our technology hasn’t yet caught up with the electric dreamers, but it will, and we’ll face similar problems dealing with that social pathology.

    In the meantime, the absolute best thing we can do for people suffering from gender confusion is to refuse to participate in their delusions. Reality doesn’t care that you want us to say there are five lights when in fact there are only four.

  64. “It’s the progressive view of history, the idea that history comes with a built-in directional arrow.”

    It’s a random walk.

    “Not all social changes are good or desirable or inevitable – remember, burning children to appease Moloch was the hip new thing, once. The Khymer Rouge were the new kids on the block, once. We pretended Zimbabwe and then South Africa would become functioning civilised societies, once.”

    Yep. Then we got rid of them, and the old guard no doubt felt much as you do about that.

  65. I did not say anything about killing, NiV.

    And how, on your analysis would it be a secret? My spouse would, on your analysis, have been keeping from me nothing of substance.

    But even if my spouse had been keeping from me something of substance, my reaction – if we’re honest – is not primarily going to concern the keeping of secrets, is it?

    My reaction is going to concern the realisation that I’ve been slipping one to a chap.

    And on your analysis, I should be cool with that because otherwise I’m a transphobe.

  66. There was that bloke who thought he was becoming a dragon. But instead of pumping him full of dragon hormones and sewing Dragon wings on his back, William Petersen pumped him full of lead. Then Edward Norten did it again a few years later.

    I think this more manly approach was the right thing to do.

  67. “I did not say anything about killing, NiV.”

    TGs have been killed for it, which is what i was thinking of. I didn’t mean to suggest you had.

    “And how, on your analysis would it be a secret? My spouse would, on your analysis, have been keeping from me nothing of substance.”

    While I would argue that it shouldn’t be a matter for discrimination. everyone knows that it is. Should someone be prejudiced against someone for being Jewish? For being Catholic? For being a trainspotting geek? No. You might think there’s nothing wrong with it, and prejudice is wrong. But if you know that a significant number of people do react badly to it, then you would be wiser to mention it.

    “My reaction is going to concern the realisation that I’ve been slipping one to a chap.”

    Depends on your definitions. She’s a girl inside.

    But there’s no legislating for taste. Like I said, you can think and feel as you like, or as you’ve been conditioned by society to feel and think. You can withdraw consent. You can split up. You can be annoyed and upset about it. But you can’t do them any harm, or tell them how to live their life, or what toilet you’ll “allow” them to go into. How do you think *they* feel?

    You’re asking me if I can empathise with transphobes, and I do. Can I ask you whether you can understand the position and feelings of the TGs? Why do you think your feelings matter, and theirs don’t?

  68. Edward Lud–It is a non problem. Unless you are living 500 or so years in the future when the technology might exist to change your “spouse” into an actual women, then it should be fairly obvious from the start that he is not female.

    NiV–“I didn’t waste my time. I got the idea in the first 20 seconds. It’s an invalid argument.”

    You sanctimonious cunt. You didn’t even bother looking. What are the misery and death of real women next to your ego. The Great NiV doesn’t need that hypothesis.

    “This is a problem that *every* generation goes through. Everyone grows up with a certain set of social norms being enforced, which they come to regard as ‘natural’ and ‘obvious’ and beyond question the only possible morality that any right-thinking society could have.

    Then society changes.”

    Society is being changed by scum who have so far murdered 150 million. And you–because SJW shite got your bleeding heart jazzed up somehow– are helping them fuck up everything.

    ” As I said above, it changes continually and always has.”

    No–the three branches of cultural Marxism will destroy the West and replace it–depending on your Caliphate pals –with either an ideological Hellhole or a Dindustan shithole or some combo of both. Quite probably wiping out centuries of real progress into the bargain.

    “Do you think the Victorian matrons were not equally horrified at all the women’s rights stuff? And visible ankles? Do you think the post-war generation were not shocked out of their minds at the “Swinging Sixties”? They thought Elvis Presley was outrageous! Do you think Mary Whitehouse of the Viewers and Listeners Association wouldn’t know exactly what you’re talking about?”

    Future NiV speaks–do you think our ancestors weren’t horrified at acid splashings and bombings and open air slave markets? Do you think Westerners raised in freedom weren’t horrified at brazen political corruption and hypocritical police silencing of free speech? Do you think that decent folk weren’t horrified at little girls singing along to lyrics about dick bicycles and then being blown up?

    “And do you think that the Islamic mullahs don’t know how you feel, seeing 1400 years of getting their way dissolve like sandcastles in the sea in the face of western culture’s rising tide? ”

    Still–STILL—waiting to hear how many Jihadis your brand of friendly persuasion has converted to the Rainow Flag Nivver. Of course I know. NONE– as in fuckall. While the 2nd and 3rd generations of subsidised imports are more militant and full of aggression than their forebears. Because they know that crawling dogs like you are what passes for the opposition these days.

    “Democracy. Votes for women. Women driving cars. Women not wearing bags over their heads. Kids dancing, together, and watching TV, wearing jeans and T-shirts with American slogans on them. They’re sinful, debauched, and disrespectful of their ancestors’ culture. People being allowed to say what they want, believe what they want, and not get beheaded or flogged or stoned to death for it.”

    That might have been true of numbers of the middle class-type beards . It isn’t true at all of what’s happening now. Now we import and save from tribal death Somali females who soak up SJW shite and insult our heros.

    “I can certainly *understand* why they would feel the way they do about us. I don’t like them. I don’t agree with them. But we’ve just overturned their entire society at a rate that’s simply frightening to anyone who grew up in the old way.”

    You aren’t overturning it you fucknut twat. You are helping destroy it. Ask Venzuela about that. And they don’t have massive SJW/Imported problems the way we do.

    “Rightly or wrongly, people don’t like their societies changed for them. To be compelled to accept things they don’t wish.”

    “I agree. And to a large extent I sympathise.”

    But tough shit Whitey eh NiV.

    ” But then, the entire *point* of social norms is to compel people to do things they hate and accept things they don’t wish.”

    Like not thieving and raping and killing? Like security of property and person. All them terrible things we are forced to do right?

    Must be the Patriarchy.

    ” All the heretics and misfits throughout history have been forced to conform against their will.”

    Many of them–like us –wanted things worth having. Most of the forcers were self-serving scum like you NiV. Who put their egos ahead of everything.

    “You’re just seeing the same system from the other end. It’s cold comfort to those caught in the gears from an early age to know that everyone will face it eventually, as society moves on.”

    Well you and your cunt SJW pals have a little problem son. Because Remember the Alamo is a great maxim for those with little to lose and your buddies have nothing to offer except tyranny and death via their attempts to change society.

    “The aim of the libertarians is to minimise that feeling. By setting the rules as loose and permissive as possible, you minimise the number of people who are made to do stuff they don’t want to do.”

    They still aren’t going in women’s bogs. And they aren’t getting they’re caliphate and Corbog and McNasty and the FFC aren’t going to win either. And neither are you –you smug cunt.

    “Society might not *like* the old ways, but it won’t stop you doing them,and living life how you want.”

    They try to stop us each and every fucking day.

    ” But it means you in turn have to make as much room as possible for everyone else to live their lives as they choose, which means not imposing restrictions on them unnecessarily.”

    And of course then they’ll leave us in peace. SJWs are just famous for that.

    “The libertarians are opposed in this goal by the authoritarians, whose common creed is that society has the right and duty to make everyone live a certain way, for their own good and for the common good. Different subgroups of them differ violently in what they think that ‘certain way’ should be, but they never question that society has the right.”

    You are no Libertarian NiV. You try to talk the talk but you are too full of SJWshite.

    “The only time they might change their minds is when they suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of the social norm enforcement machine, and get some inkling of what the social misfits were moaning about.”

    Standard SJW shite=Now you norms are going to get it!!.

    Bring it you scum. Then you will find out what your 1% vs the 99% is all about. Also the other way around.

    “A man demanding to be regarded & treated as a woman is a direct threat to them. There’s nothing illogical or delusional of fearing a threat.”

    “It’s not a threat to anything they have a right to possess. ”

    Like women being free to have a piss without the threat of violence and perversion or much worse? As on the vid you didn’t deign to watch where a woman asked a 300lb martials arts male freak in Desperate Dan drag why he was in the ladies and he knocked 5 of her teeth out on the spot. That is OK with you is it SJW?

    “They don’t get to command society. Society commands them.”

    No such thing as society. Only noisy Marxist scum.

    “They think that just because they agreed with society’s dictates before, that they or people like them were in control, and that was fine. But they never were.”

    Still not getting in the ladies NiV. And there will be no future worth shit if the next few years do not see socialism and its allies all in their fucking boxes for good.

    “If you take the authoritarian view, society commands something different now, and heretics from the new common social norms have no more right to object than victims of the old ones did.”

    Tripe. Noisy CM scum and their media pals aren’t running the show yet. Despite your fatuous fantasies.

    “From a libertarian point of view, they have no right to impose on anyone else what gender they are internally,”

    Only two sexes imposed by nature externally. The rest is mental illness abetted by Marxist subjectivist cockrot.

    ” or force them to follow the gender stereotypes they dictate. ”

    They can do what they like–outside the ladies.

    “You can be rude to them as you choose, if that causes no harm, but be prepared for any unnecessary unpleasantness to be met with unpleasantness.”

    We’ll all have to go and change our underpants after the terror of such a threat.

    “I don’t expect you to be happy with either.”

    The only thing you should expect is the misery your stupidity and evil will bring for everybody. And hopefully in full measure for yourself.

  69. “You sanctimonious cunt. You didn’t even bother looking. What are the misery and death of real women next to your ego.”

    So why do you think it’s OK for you to try using the misery and pain of women to try to justify your foul prejudices? It’s an invalid, illogical argument. A blatant ‘appeal to emotion’ fallacy. It makes no sense.

  70. “Yes. And I can understand why some people think people who smoke shouldn’t be allowed into pubs, and farmers shouldn’t be allowed to hunt foxes, and pervy men shouldn’t be allowed to use pornography, and women shouldn’t be allowed to prostitute themselves, and drunkards shouldn’t be allowed to drink, and drug takers shouldn’t be allowed to take drugs, and sweet shops and burger vans shouldn’t be allowed near schools, and fat people shouldn’t be treated on the NHS…”

    All of those are people making their own choices re their own lives not people pushing into the spaces of others and bringing proven danger. As the vids on violent TGs you didn’t bother your arse to look at showed.

    “People always *want* to make others live as they think they ought to. It’s for their own good, or the good of society.”

    Its for the good of women and little girls. Watch the vids and see some of the case histories. As the narrator says vast numbers of cases were left out or the vids would have been as long as one of your postings rather than just 25 minutes.

    ” I did actually make an attempt to do it in a friendly and non-confrontational way. But then Ecks decided to get in my face about it, and almost everyone else here supported him, so I said “fuck it” and followed suit.”

    You were F & N-C up until the point you realised things weren’t going your way. Since then it has been the steady repetition of the same crap in the hope of wearing folk out.

    Steve-“-We pretended Zimbabwe and then South Africa would become functioning civilised societies, once.”

    NiV-“Yep. Then we got rid of them, and the old guard no doubt felt much as you do about that.”

    And 12 year old white boys boiled alive and 4 year old girls getting the Joker Mouth cut during a general family massacre is just one of the small prices we have to pay for the Brave New Age eh NiV. Christ–not even most of South Africa’s blacks would agree with your “Passing Parade of History” bullshit. They suffer more than the whites and have even less security than before your supposed inevitable changes.

    “TGs have been killed for it, which is what i was thinking of. I didn’t mean to suggest you had.”

    And TG s have done their share of killing as well. Oh!– sorry I forgot. They’re not real TGs if they are killers.

    “Depends on your definitions. She’s a girl inside.”

    Cos science tells him so.

    “You’re asking me if I can empathise with transphobes, and I do. Can I ask you whether you can understand the position and feelings of the TGs? Why do you think your feelings matter, and theirs don’t?”

    Because we aren’t demanding access to the ladies bog that’s why.

    Also any sympathy I might have had for the mentally ill with sex delusions long ago vanished when they allied themselves with and decided to serve as cannon fodder for the scum of the left. They deserve harsh treatment for that wicked alliance alone. If you willingly choose to climb into the tub of blood, misery and death that is socialism then you have put yourself beyond humanity and decency by that action alone.

  71. “So why do you think it’s OK for you to try using the misery and pain of women to try to justify your foul prejudices?”

    Misery and pain caused by the very group you insist are harmless. Counter-examples to your false and misleading twaddle.

  72. I wos just reading about Anorexia and brain imaging. Amazingly, people who are actually emaciated but feel they are obese have brain characterististics different to those that aren’t starved but all fat-feely. That’s proper sciencey brain imaging.

    So, the next time some skeletal teenager says she’s a lard bucket, you must agree with her wholeheartedly and campaign for her to get fat reduction surgery and diet pills on the NHS. Plus start a state-wide, compulsory social inclusion program with stuff like extra wide entrances into banks.

    If not; if you prefer to believe your lying eyes over her self-delusion and the insistence of some twat like NiV, then you’re a bigot just like them American Mullahs who threw the MLK suffragettes off the roof.

  73. NiV, yes I think I can understand at least to some extent the torment of a person who sincerely believes they’ve been born into the wrong body. I don’t say their feelings matter any less than mine.

    But your question implies intellectual sleight of-hand: you start out by saying this is nothing to do with the feelings of TGs and is instead everything to do with everyone else accepting reality; you end up saying it’s just a competition between competing feelings, and who’s to say who wins?

    And you’re right. If it was merely a competition between competing feelings, then why would mine count more?

    But if it’s only their feelings we’re talking about, then social engineering in their favour is no more called for than it is in anyone else’s.

  74. “Misery and pain caused by the very group you insist are harmless. Counter-examples to your false and misleading twaddle.”

    They’re not the “same group”. You’re pulling the usual authoritarian Group A Group B trick.

    When a radical feminist wants to make a video justifying society caging all men, she starts off with tales of the all the atrocities committed by men. She exploits the misery and suffering of women and girls, (a no doubt kittens and puppies and anything else she can get her hands on) to support her own political ambitions for influence.

    Authoritarians always demand power over others. They *always* justify it by means of those others pose to sympathy figures. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    You’re on the same side as the ones who killed the 150 million – the authoritarians. You just want to enforce different rules.

  75. “But your question implies intellectual sleight of-hand: you start out by saying this is nothing to do with the feelings of TGs and is instead everything to do with everyone else accepting reality; you end up saying it’s just a competition between competing feelings, and who’s to say who wins?”

    It’s both. The *reality* is that TGs suffer from having brains wired like the other sex. But the libertarian principle applies whether people’s beliefs are true or not.

    Freedom of religion applies, even to religions that are not true. (And given the number of religions, almost all of them have to be untrue.)

    So even allowing for the fact you think I’m wrong about reality, that still doesn’t give you the right to dictate how others are to live. Even if you’re right and I’m wrong. Or vice versa. Conversely, it ought to stop the other authoritarians dictating to you, but only if we reject the shared authoritarian creed: that society has the right and duty to dictate to its members how they must live; for their own good, and the good of society.

    If you insist society *does* have the right, you can’t complain when you find it dictating to you.

  76. Group a/b?

    Yeah–if they’re victims they’re trannies. If they’re killers/rapists etc–despite meeting all the other criteria–self-declared/wearing women’s clothes etc–even a couple of knob-choppers– then they are CIS-thugs not TG at all.

    A nice system if you can make it work.

    But you can’t.

    “When a radical feminist wants to make a video justifying society caging all men, she starts off with tales of the all the atrocities committed by men. She exploits the misery and suffering of women and girls, (a no doubt kittens and puppies and anything else she can get her hands on) to support her own political ambitions for influence.”

    Not asking for influence pal. Just that this crew stay out of spaces they are already not allowed. Your pals are the ones claiming victimhood.

    Real women who have been raped and/or murdered don’t need to claim victim “status”. And I’m sure many would gladly give it up to be whole or even alive again.

  77. There is male and female and mental illness. The sooner we get back to the truth of it, the better off everyone will be.

  78. “There is male and female and mental illness.”

    And that’s the mental illness – the insistence that reality must fit into your rigid metal categories, even when it doesn’t.

  79. “Just that this crew stay out of spaces they are already not allowed.”

    They *are* allowed. Have been for the past 7 years. Have you not been paying attention?

  80. “And that’s the mental illness – the insistence that reality must fit into your rigid metal categories, even when it doesn’t.”

    Says the bloke who believes the hairy cock and balls dangling right there in front of his eyes belong to a woman.

  81. “Says the bloke who believes the hairy cock and balls dangling right there in front of his eyes belong to a woman.”

    A woman’s brain. Are ‘you’ your brain or your balls?


    I’m going to bed. I’ll carry on playing with you tomorrow, if you’re still going.

  82. NiV believes he is winning all the arguments; feels he is playing with us.

    What reality could possibly intrude on that delusion?

  83. To return to Tim’s original point, the trans-gender ideology (whether it is well founded or not) is problematic because it is being imposed without consideration of the consequences, legal and otherwise, upon society.

    Expanding on that, I would say that the subject has been hijacked by the cultural Marxists precisely because of this disruption. It is a perfect issue for them, because it literally forces people to deny the evidence of their own eyes and reason in order to retain social status.

    The cultural Marxists must be crushed. There may be enough societal push back on this to start a preference cascade the other way. I’m afraid Glen or Glenda is going to have to take one for the team.

  84. You have to check every woman going into the toilets to make sure she has the right genitals before you can let her in. Who would want that job?

    Me.

    NiV’s been brainwashed by post modernism. No point trying to argue using reason and objective truth as he’s clearly rejected all that old fashioned nonsense.

  85. For the 100th (dear lord) comment I feel I ought to paraphrase the mighty Steve: “There’s no point picking an argument with a tranny, how will you win against a bloke crazy enough to cut his own cock off?”

    Such wisdom also applies to our resident trannyphile.

  86. “if I say I believe I am NiV can I write screeds on this blog.”

    Anyone’s allowed to present an argument. It’s your choice not to.

    “NiV believes he is winning all the arguments; feels he is playing with us. What reality could possibly intrude on that delusion?”

    Your delusion that I’m not? 🙂

    “Expanding on that, I would say that the subject has been hijacked by the cultural Marxists precisely because of this disruption. It is a perfect issue for them, because it literally forces people to deny the evidence of their own eyes and reason in order to retain social status.”

    As I’ve explained multiple times, they hijack these issues because they know *you* can be relied upon to fight against it, and that makes *you* look bad.

    Authoritarians justify seizing power by pointing to some threat to a new sympathy group. The poor, women, the disabled, blacks, immigrants, gays, baby polar bears, it doesn’t matter. Society shifts to hold new sympathy for an oppressed group. They spot this, and demand authoritarian power to demand the nasty right-wingers be made to stop persecuting those poor X, the right-wingers predictably fight that by attacking group X as scum not worth protecting, and the Marxists win yet another round of the culture war, erode a few more freedoms, when everyone else sees the Marxists fighting to save the baby polar bears from these nasty, cruel, bigoted, selfish right-wingers; who clearly need to be stamped on.

    They’ve done it half a dozen times or more. We can see the pattern. But we walk straight into the same stupid trap every time.

    “No point trying to argue using reason and objective truth as he’s clearly rejected all that old fashioned nonsense.”

    Try using it. You might be pleasantly surprised.

  87. NiV, if a TV’s brain is wrongly wired, would it not make as much sense somehow to rewire the brain?

    Also, you complain of me wanting to force others to live in a certain way. I’m not sure I’ve said anything which might be taken to imply this, but anyway how is this different from forcing women in refuges to accept staff they might consider to be male? It’s like forcing men’s clubs to accept women. How is it different from forcing women in women’s sports events to compete with others they might consider to be men?

  88. On this tranny nonsense, 3 things:

    1. If a bloke wants to dress up and look like an ugly old bint in a M&S twin-set, then I don’t really care. I may snigger but I really don’t give a toss.
    2. If a bloke really is transgender and has gone through all the pre-op psychiatric evaluation and still decides that gender re-assignment is the answer, then fair play, who am I to argue.
    3. If some nutter using the trans-gender issue to dress up as a female to get his rocks of in the ladies lavvy and assaults my daughter in the ladies loo, then he is going to be the first person to have his gender reassigned by having his cock and balls ripped off and shoved down his throat.

  89. NiV: because you are biologically a man, all the chemistry and surgery you choose to endure will never make you more than a Heath Robinson simulacrum of a woman. You retain the physical advantages of male physiognamy, both skeletal and muscular, so you can never experience the vulnerability of female physical weakness when confronted by a male stranger in the public loo. Real women do.

  90. The problem with the argument of NIV on this thread, so far as I can be bothered to read it, is that allowing biological men into women only places provides opportunity for predatory men to attack women. Opportunity that previously didn’t exist.

    It is also in direct opposition to the wishes of women. Why should women’s right to private spaces free of men be sacrificed on the alter of PC?

    So I’m fine if trannies want to pretend to be women but not fine if everyone else has to pretend they are women as well. If trannies want separate toilets then the tranny council of GB can pay for them, and regular men and women can ignore them and get on with their normal lives without abnormality being rammed down their throats.

  91. The day approaches when the Bottom Inspectors of VIZ will become a reality. Another make-work new profession financed by council taxes.

  92. If a dude wants to dress up and play lady I don’t care. If other people want to indulge that fantasy I don’t care either. I draw the line when they try to drag me down the rabbit hole with them.

  93. Try using it. You might be pleasantly surprised.

    You’re the one claiming male/female is subjective with an argument founded on feels not reals.

  94. I find it interesting, NiV, that you claim we are the mean authoritarian types, who are seeking the power to prevent trannies with dicks going into the women’s bogs.

    We aren’t seeking the removal of freedoms that they have. Dudes with dicks aren’t free (socially at least) to go into the ladies.

    From my point of view, you are the authoritarian who is forcing women to accept dudes with dicks into their toilets/refuges/female spaces. And trying to forcibly change perceptions that someone with a dick is actually a woman.

    I am merely resisting the enforcement of your views on me, and acting to protect the women i love.

  95. “They’ve done it half a dozen times or more. We can see the pattern. But we walk straight into the same stupid trap every time.”

    Its an odd argument – never defend yourself against your enemy, and give them everything they want, and magically they’ll go away.

    I wonder how that would have worked in the 1930s and 40s? Gas chambers in every city of Europe and as far as the Urals one suspects.

  96. Re: Solid Steve 2: Squirrels of The Patriots at February 4, 2018 at 10:17 pm:

    “The transgender cult isn’t even all that new. It’s much like previous death cults, such as Catharism, communism and radical environmentalism. The form and content is different, but the impulse is similar.”

    Transgender(ist?)s the new Skoptsy, perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy

    (Acknowledgement for possessing such arcane knowledge to Alfred Bester: Tiger, Tiger / The Stars my Destination – the most filmable science fiction novel never filmed . . . )

  97. Interesting insight, James Mc.

    I have a theory, based on little but limited anecdata that genuine transsexuals (genuine in the sense of being sincere) are driven by the most profound self-loathing which, in some cases, manifests itself in sexual prurience – a sort of extreme version of the idea that homosexuality, at least sometimes, is driven by playing hard to get.

  98. Tony,

    fuck off. (Again.)

    “NiV, if a TV’s brain is wrongly wired, would it not make as much sense somehow to rewire the brain?”

    In theory, maybe. There are some complicated ethical and philosophical questions about that, but I’m not going to go off at a tangent unless you’re really interested.

    However, we don’t currently have the medical technology to do that, which is why they do it the way they do.

    “Also, you complain of me wanting to force others to live in a certain way. I’m not sure I’ve said anything which might be taken to imply this, but anyway how is this different from forcing women in refuges to accept staff they might consider to be male?”

    The difference is in the application of the Harm Principle: that society is only justified in restraining an individual’s freedom of action to prevent harm and preserve freedom.

    Thus, you can prevent men working in women’s refuges from assaulting the women, because that does them harm, but you can’t stop them working there, because simply working there does no harm. But conversely, you can stop the women stopping the men working there, because that abridges their freedom of action without that being justified by harm prevention.

    That said, there is another freedom – the freedom of association – that says people can trade with and associate with whoever they like. This freedom is abridged by *all* anti-discrimination legislation. That applies to race, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, and transgenderism. It’s not specific to the TG issue, and we’ve had parts of that legislation since 1975.

    If you want to argue against anti-discrimination legislation *in general*, on the grounds that it is mildly authoritarian, be my guest. It’s not the fault of TGs, though, any more than you can blame all women for the sex equality laws. And you’ll have to tell your wife/daughters/sisters that you don’t think women should be allowed to make sex discrimination claims, and that men should be allowed to discriminate against women if they like.

    Pragmatic Libertarian advocates for anti-discrimination argue that the benefits outweigh the limited loss of freedom, in the same sort of way that free market advocates can still support things like patents and copyright. But it’s a controversial issue.

    “How is it different from forcing women in women’s sports events to compete with others they might consider to be men?”

    The issue there isn’t really men vs women, but with-testosterone vs without-testosterone. This would deal with the issue of TG men (who were born women, but having taken testosterone have the musculature of men. Making it about testosterone cuts to the core issue, and avoids the legal issues. A TG woman who transitioned before puberty (by taking puberty blockers), and therefore didn’t have the pubertal testosterone surge, can compete as a girl. Those who transitioned post-puberty unfortunately can’t. And TG men can compete as men. It’s both fair and legal.

    “On this tranny nonsense, 3 things:”

    I agree with all three.

    “NiV: because you are biologically a man, all the chemistry and surgery you choose to endure will never make you more than a Heath Robinson simulacrum of a woman.”

    The problem is that their brain is biologically a woman’s, even while their genitals are male. They’re not biologically either “male” or “female”, they’re actually a mixture.

    In the same way, somebody born without legs can be given artificial ones, but can never be more than a “Heath Robinson simulacrum” of a two-legged person. The medical technology to fix it properly simply doesn’t exist. They have the brain of an able-bodied person, but not the body. We can’t rewire their brain to make no legs feel natural/normal, and we can’t give them actual legs. We do the best we can for them.

    “You retain the physical advantages of male physiognamy, both skeletal and muscular, so you can never experience the vulnerability of female physical weakness when confronted by a male stranger in the public loo. Real women do.”

    Real TGs do, too. Most TGs show signs of it around the age of 5-7, long before they’ve acquired those muscles. Most TGs have experienced bullying from older kids, and groups of kids. Even adult males can feel intimidated by bigger, stronger, fitter men, and by groups of men. And TGs by violating social norms face the combined force of *everyone* threatening them. They have most of the physical vulnerability, and none of the chivalrous protection that women get.

    My TG friends won’t go to the ladies on their own in a lot of public places, even though it’s entirely legal, because they know they’re vulnerable to false accusations and violence from outraged husbands and boyfriends, and even bouncers or the police, and far less likely to be believed. They know *very well* what it’s like to feel vulnerable.

    The attempted suicide rate for bullied TGs is about 40%. What’s the suicide rate for women?

    “The problem with the argument of NIV on this thread, so far as I can be bothered to read it, is that allowing biological men into women only places provides opportunity for predatory men to attack women. Opportunity that previously didn’t exist.”

    The opportunity existed before – all you have to do is push the door and walk in, as if there weren’t a hundred other locations and situations where men are left alone with women. Elevators, railway carriages, taxis, …

    And in practice, despite the laws being in place for decades, no such wave of assaults has materialised.

    “It is also in direct opposition to the wishes of women.”

    The British Social Attitudes survey asked them, and found that 72% of women are OK with it. Only 14% are not.

    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39147/bsa34_moral_issues_final.pdf

    “If trannies want separate toilets then the tranny council of GB can pay for them”

    They don’t. They want the same toilets as everyone else gets.

    “Is the strongest argument in favour of unisex toilets that these threads will get shorter?”

    🙂

    Tim would just find something else to stimulate conversation.

    “You’re the one claiming male/female is subjective with an argument founded on feels not reals.”

    It’s not subjective. The brain differences are objective.

    “We aren’t seeking the removal of freedoms that they have. Dudes with dicks aren’t free (socially at least) to go into the ladies.”

    As noted above, 72% of women are socially OK with it. And 72% of people (slightly more women than men) say discrimination against TGS is ‘always’ or ‘mostly’ wrong. Socially, the general view appears to be that they *should* have that freedom, and that the ones who prevent them having it in practice are in the wrong.

    “And trying to forcibly change perceptions that someone with a dick is actually a woman.”

    The perception has already changed.

    “I am merely resisting the enforcement of your views on me,”

    I follow Voltaire’s point of view in this: “I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” My argument is that nobody should be able to impose their views, or their approved way of life, on anyone else. That includes *you* telling TGs where they can go, or what they can do.

    “and acting to protect the women i love.”

    And should I not be allowed to act to protect my friends? They’re in a lot more danger.

    “Its an odd argument – never defend yourself against your enemy, and give them everything they want, and magically they’ll go away.”

    Marxists have absolutely *no* ideological or personal reasons for supporting TGs. They used to stick pink triangles on them and gas them! What they *want* is to justify society giving them the power to stomp on you, by getting you to say and do stuff that will make you unpopular. You *are* giving them everything they want!

    The problem is you persist in misidentifying your true enemies. When eco-Marxists use baby polar bears to attack your businesses, you think the baby polar bears are the enemy. When radical feminists use women’s rights to attack your institutions, you think women are the enemy. And they use that (sucessfully) to paint all right-wingers as racist, sexist, homophobic bigots. Well done! You haven’t stopped women getting equality, but you *have* justified draconian sex discrimination laws to take away some of our freedom.

    “Transgender(ist?)s the new Skoptsy, perhaps?”

    An interesting parallel! Yes, it’s the same “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” principle. Thanks for teaching me something new!

    “I have a theory, based on little but limited anecdata that genuine transsexuals (genuine in the sense of being sincere) are driven by the most profound self-loathing”

    Yes. The self-loathing is taught by society, and is one of the drivers behind the high suicide rate. A more supportive society reduces the self-loathing and suicides significantly. Gays used to have the same problem.

  99. I don’t have the time right now, NiV, to deal with all this, save to say that I think a great many gays still have the same problem – and that it’s not one which will ever go away no matter how much the rest of us are nice about it.

    And you can be a patronising git. I am well aware of freedom of association, and have no truck with anti-discrimination laws.

    Anyway, we’ll have to pick this up another time.

  100. “The problem is that their brain is biologically a woman’s, even while their genitals are male.”

    This is just wrong, and since you are so well versed on the subject you know this and are outright lying.

    All the science says (limited as it is) is that studies of transgender brains show them to have a higher likelihood of displaying some characteristics of the person’s perceived alter-gender than those of non-transgender peers. And since behaviour and other environment effects shape brain anatomy, it is impossible to tell whether these characteristics are inborn.

    “…biologically a woman’s…” bollocks.

  101. “And you can be a patronising git. I am well aware of freedom of association, and have no truck with anti-discrimination laws.”

    And how am I supposed to know what other people know about? If we all had the same knowledge and understanding of freedom and other topics, we wouldn’t be having this argument.

    Anyway, we’ll have to pick this up another time.

    Fair enough. Until then.

    “All the science says (limited as it is) is that studies of transgender brains show them to have a higher likelihood of displaying some characteristics of the person’s perceived alter-gender than those of non-transgender peers.”

    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and flaps and shits like a duck, I’ll still insist it’s a blackbird because you can’t PROVE ABSOLUTELY it’s a duck. I’ve got zip evidence that’s it’s a blackbird, of course, but that doesn’t matter BECAUSE REASONS.

    Is it a female brain in a male body, or a male brain in a male body? Let’s look at the brain. Oh it LOOKS like a female brain, and ACTS like a female brain, but I’m still going to insist it’s a male brain, just because.

    Why?

    “And since behaviour and other environment effects shape brain anatomy, it is impossible to tell whether these characteristics are inborn.”

    That’s where the genetic studies come in…

  102. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and flaps and shits like a duck, I’ll still insist it’s a blackbird because you can’t PROVE ABSOLUTELY it’s a duck. I’ve got zip evidence that’s it’s a blackbird, of course, but that doesn’t matter BECAUSE REASONS.

    Is it a female brain in a male body, or a male brain in a male body? Let’s look at the brain. Oh it LOOKS like a female brain, and ACTS like a female brain, but I’m still going to insist it’s a male brain, just because.

    Isn’t this arguing our case?
    Looks like a dude? – Has a dick, check
    Acts like a dude? – Dominates female sports, check
    Quacks like a dude? – Unless they’ve been guzzling hormone blockers since before puberty, check

    So unless they’re willing to climb into the MRI machine I don’t carry around so i can take a map of their brain, I’ll treat them like a dude.

    Also, I imagine asking everyone I meet to submit to an MRI scan would put a crimp on my social life…

  103. “Isn’t this arguing our case?”

    In attempting to tell the difference between a female brain in a male body, and a male brain in a male body, you would look at the body? How does that work?

Leave a Reply

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

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