Just an everyday story of normies

Nic Chandler, 27, from Tennessee was born male but identifies gender neutral
Met Rachel Kouris, 26, a transgender woman, on a dating site
Then met Xander, a transgender man, through work and he joined them as trio
Trio share same king size bed and insist their relationship is very conventional

OK, whatever floats your boat.

56 comments on “Just an everyday story of normies

  1. The antics of oddballs is not the issue.

    They can do what the Hell they like so long as it is all volunteers.

    What must not be is allowing socialist scum to enshrine “2+2=5 if CM tells you it does” into law.

    You do not and can not become a woman by declaring you have. To accept that you can is to accept any madness and open the gates to Hell even wider than leftist evil has already opened them.

  2. Correct, Mr Ecks.

    ‘gender neutral’

    Does that mean having NO gender? Between genders?

    Define ‘gender.’

    Not that I care.

  3. Nic Chandler, 27, from Tennessee was born male but identifies gender neutral. Met Rachel Kouris, 26, a transgender woman, on a dating site. Then met Xander, a transgender man, through work and he joined them as trio. Trio share same king size bed and

    admit their relationship is a fvcking freakshow

  4. Personally, I found “Holly Hagan exhibits her curvy figure in a tiny thong bikini and sheer sarong skirt as she parties in Marbella” a far more interesting story. Although prices at the Ocean Club preclude checking it out in person

  5. So it’s three men in a bed? Have I got that right? Or two men and one woman?

    Ho-hum.

    Tom, re. Contins, whilst I’m sure you can do w/o my contributions, when I can find the time/be bothered once more to navigate the sign-up process then I’ll migrate.

  6. Capt. Potato could perhaps be coaxed into doing a venn diagramme but my reading was the bed contains:
    1/3 Man who thinks he’s a woman
    1/3 Woman who thinks she’s a man
    1/3 Don’t know

  7. ‘So it’s three men in a bed? Have I got that right? Or two men and one woman?’

    No. Men and women are sexes. These people are genders. Whatever the heck that means.

  8. It’s tiresome that the lefty capture of the language and social mores requires us to “celebrate” this sort of behaviour.

    It’s part of the brainwashing. Socialists are the most evil torturers and murderers on the planet. I well remember a cretin on this blog, years ago, arguing that Stalin was really a very nice chap and the numbers he murdered were facist, right wing propaganda. It was really only two, three, well certainly no more than 5 million.

    These people have to convince us that they love everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexuality or belief.

    Except, obviously, if you’re white, British male, in which case they will eventually have to kill you.

  9. “I well remember a cretin on this blog, years ago, arguing that Stalin was really a very nice chap and the numbers he murdered were facist, right wing propaganda.”

    A few years later in 1936, Justice Commissar Nikolai Krylenko publicly stated that the anti-gay criminal law was correctly aimed at the decadent and effete old ruling classes, thus further linking homosexuality to a right-wing conspiracy, i.e. Tsarist aristocracy and German fascists.

    … and then …

    When Stalin came to power, homosexuality became a topic unfit for public depiction, defense or discussion. Homosexual or bisexual Soviets who wanted a position within the Communist Party were expected to marry a person of the opposite sex, regardless of their actual sexual orientation. A notable example was the Russian film director Sergei Eisenstein, who despite his homosexuality managed to survive by leading a double life, having affairs with men while married to a woman, producing films that were politically pleasing to Stalin.

    After Stalin died in 1953, he was replaced by Nikita Khrushchev, who proceeded to liberalize the Stalin era laws regarding marriage, divorce and abortion, but the anti-gay criminal law remained. The Khruschev government believed that absent of a criminal law against homosexuality, the sex between men that occurred in the prison environment would spread into the general population as they released many Stalin-era prisoners. Whereas the Stalin government conflated homosexuality with pedophilia, the Khrushchev government conflated homosexuality with the situational, sometimes forced, sex acts between male prisoners.[29]

    In 1958, the Interior Ministry sent a secret memo to law enforcement ordering them to step up enforcement of the anti-gay criminal law. Yet during the late 1950s and early 1960s, Aline Mosby, a foreign reporter in Russia at the time, attributed to the more liberal attitude of the Khrushchev government to the fact that she did see some gay couples in public and that it was not uncommon to see men waiting outside of certain theaters looking for dates with male performers.[30]

    A 1964 Soviet sex manual instructed: “With all the tricks at their disposal, homosexuals seek out and win the confidence of youngsters. Then they proceed to act. Do not under any circumstances allow them to touch you. Such people should be immediately reported to the administrative organs so that they can be removed from society”.[31]

    Despite these rare examples, thousands of people were imprisoned for homosexuality and government censorship of homosexuality and gay rights did not begin to slowly relax until the early 1970s, allowing for brief statements. Kozlovsky was permitted to include a brief interior monologue about homosexuality in Moscow to the End of the Line (1973). Perhaps the first public endorsement of gay rights since Stalin was a brief statement, critical of Article 121 and calling for its repeal, made in the Textbook of Soviet Criminal Law (1973).[26]

    These references were characterized as being brief statements in a novel or textbook and were made by heterosexuals. Vicktor Sosnora was allowed to write about witnessing an elderly gay actor being brutally murdered in a Leningrad bar in The Flying Dutchman (1979), but the book was only allowed to be published in East Germany. When the author was gay and in particular if they were seen as supporting gay rights, the censors tended to be much harsher.

    Russian gay author Yevgeny Kharitonov illegally circulated some gay fiction before he died of heart failure in 1981. Author Gennady Trifonov served four years of hard labor for circulating his gay poems and upon his release was allowed to write and publish only if he avoided depicting or making reference to homosexuality.[32]

    In 1984, a group of Russian gay men met and attempted to organize an official gay rights organization, only to be quickly shut down by the KGB. It was not until later in the glasnost period that public discussion was permitted about re-legalizing private, consensual adult homosexual relations.

    A poll conducted in 1989 reported that homosexuals were the most hated group in Russian society and that 30 percent of those polled felt that homosexuals should be liquidated.[24] In a 1991 public opinion poll conducted in Chelyabinsk, 30 percent of the respondents aged 16 to 30 years old felt that homosexuals should be “isolated from society”, 5 percent felt they should be “liquidated”, 60 percent had a “negative” attitude toward gay people and 5 percent labeled their sexual orientation “unfortunate”.[31]

    The question we are asking ourselves is: who here is on Stalin’s side on the issue of anti-Soviet ‘alternative’ sexuality?

  10. NiV, old chop, I gave up reading long before the end, not least because I realised that even if I staggered through it all, I’d then have to work out what your point was. Mostly, I don’t have the time.

    Brevity, is a virtue. Says the geezer who a few hours ago, on another thread, posted a doozy of a thumbsucker. Well …. once in a while, one hopes it might be forgiven.

  11. I get confused; is a “transgender woman” someone who was born a man but now acts as a woman, or the other way round?

    (although having written it, I’m not sure I actually care)

  12. “even if I staggered through it all, I’d then have to work out what your point was.”

    You know exactly what my point was.

    Anyone who knows anything about the history of the left, and Stalin in particular, knows that they were all opposed to non-conformist LGBT sexuality. The big laugh is all the morons dribbling on about “leftists” and “Stalin” while espousing classic 1930s Soviet/Stalinist policies and attitudes on LGBT precisely!

    Just as you echo the Muslim theocrats. Pro or anti-LGBT isn’t a matter of left or right – it’s a matter of authoritarian or libertarian. Authoritarian philosophies on both left and right prior to the 1980s were opposed to it. Some have responded to their defeat on the LGBT issue by turning their guns on homophobia instead, as a suitable alternative. They don’t care what the rules are, so long as they’re in charge of enforcing them. You can fight that on liberal grounds, but not if you’re otherwise anti-liberal. And not if you persist in misidentifying it as a left-right thing.

    But you already know all this. Complaints that posts are too long to read are the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly shouting “Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! I can’t hear you!”

    If you didn’t know what I was saying, you wouldn’t know you needed to stick your fingers in your ears. You wouldn’t feel any need to *tell* me you had, either.

    But whatever. I expect you’ll claim not to have read this comment either. So nobody will find out you’re secretly a Stalinist, will they?

  13. “I get confused; is a “transgender woman” someone who was born a man but now acts as a woman, or the other way round?”

    The former.

    Or to put it more precisely, it’s someone whose brain is wired according to the female pattern, (due to genetic factors like mutations in the androgen receptor gene stopping the developing fetus responding properly to dihydrotestosterone signals,) while the rest of their body is male.

    The brain is considered the root of personal identity – you can lose any other part of your body and you will still remain ‘you’. But brain death means ‘you’ are dead, even if the rest of your body lives. So it’s the wiring of the brain that decides what ‘you’ are.

    “(although having written it, I’m not sure I actually care)”

    No reason why you should. The frequency with which the subject comes up on here is pretty bizarre. Tim likes to troll for traffic…

  14. Richard: well, by appropriating “cis-” as the opposite of “trans-“, if they insist that “cis-gender woman” is a woman who’s gender matches their sex, as the prefix “cis-” does actually mean if you twist it enough, then by their insistant use of the language, a “trans-gender woman” is a woman who’s gender does not match their sex, so not-a-woman.

    Alternatively, if you ignore the dodgy pairing of “trans-” with “cis-” and use the other meaning of “trans-” meaning “transformed” (of which the opposite is *NOT* “cis”, but “nontrans”), then a trans-woman is somebody transformed from a women, so no-longer-a-woman.

    So, clearly, from the rules of the very language they are using, a trans-women is either a not-a-woman or a no-longer-a-woman.

  15. anon,

    Only if you’re classifying them as “man” or “woman” based on their sex, rather than their gender.

  16. “You know exactly what my point was.”

    Well thanks for the free mind read NiV but it is somewhat undermined by your inability to marshal a coherent account of the contents of your own badly abused brainpan never mind others.

    “Anyone who knows anything about the history of the left, and Stalin in particular, knows that they were all opposed to non-conformist LGBT sexuality. The big laugh is all the morons dribbling on about “leftists” and “Stalin” while espousing classic 1930s Soviet/Stalinist policies and attitudes on LGBT precisely!”

    Normal folk don’t like wierdies much Niv.

    Despite your endless fantasy nonsense tho’ they almost never take violent action against them–socialist scum excepted . Preferring to stay well away and leave the odds to get on with it. Assuming they are real odds and not posturing leftists who want to force everybody to endorse their antics just because it offends the squares and straights.

    “Just as you echo the Muslim theocrats. Pro or anti-LGBT isn’t a matter of left or right – it’s a matter of authoritarian or libertarian.”

    Nobody is stopping your chums from exhibiting their freakery to those who admire such capers. Those who do not, want nothing to do with the odds. Whether the odds like that or not is their problem.

    “Authoritarian philosophies on both left and right prior to the 1980s were opposed to it.”

    You don’t have to be a powerseeker to dislike those who twist their dicks into repugnant zones. So long as they leave the rest of us out of it and it is all volunteers much luck to them.

    “Some have responded to their defeat on the LGBT issue by turning their guns on homophobia instead, as a suitable alternative.”

    So those who were against homos are now against those who are against homos? This sounds like your territory old son. Haters gotta hate but the idea that it is somehow value free so long as hate is in there somewhere is one of your nuttiest yet.

    “They don’t care what the rules are, so long as they’re in charge of enforcing them.”

    Apart from “volunteers only” and “no invasion of women’s bogs” I have never suggested any control on wierdry. So your hypothesis is dodgy to begin with.

    “You can fight that on liberal grounds, but not if you’re otherwise anti-liberal. And not if you persist in misidentifying it as a left-right thing.”

    What’s the phrase? PARKLIFE.

    “But you already know all this. Complaints that posts are too long to read are the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly shouting “Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! I can’t hear you!”

    It’s not our fault you have verbal diarrhoea.

    “If you didn’t know what I was saying, you wouldn’t know you needed to stick your fingers in your ears. You wouldn’t feel any need to *tell* me you had, either.”

    If we did know what you were saying we wouldn’t need to listen to you in the first place.

    “But whatever. I expect you’ll claim not to have read this comment either. So nobody will find out you’re secretly a Stalinist, will they?”

    Nobody has not read it and so they will never not know that I am not secretly not a Stalinist will they?

  17. “Normal folk don’t like wierdies much Niv.”

    True. But “weirdies” just got redefined to point to racists, sexists, and homophobes instead. Same dynamics, different target.

  18. In response to NiV:
    You are, of course, quite correct. Socialists have never cared for homosexual or other sexual deviants in socialist countries. But they have always been extremely keen on such in non-socialist countries. Could it be because they see it undermining these societies from within?

  19. “True. But “weirdies” just got redefined to point to racists, sexists, and homophobes instead. Same dynamics, different target.”

    So you are endorsing cultural Marxism then NiV.?

    And don’t worry: that is how the world may look to you now but once you stop snorting London Bubble your head will clear.

  20. @NiV – TL:DR, but I’m guessing that “Parklife!” is an adequate response.

    @ Gamecock – ‘gender’ is social science bibble, ignore it.

    Still, it’s nice to see that even purple-haired cosplaying weirdo mingers can get laid and find happiness together.

  21. Talking about oddball relationships though, what is it with Liz Hurley getting her teenage son to take all those photos of her in a bikini?

    I’m not complaining about the photos, she is a fine looking woman, but it must be an oedipal nightmare for the lad. I hope he’s gay…

  22. The sex/gender correlation is about the only result in the social sciences where the R^2 value is so close to 1 as to make no difference, and yet they deny that it has any significance.

    Not Science.

  23. “You are, of course, quite correct. Socialists have never cared for homosexual or other sexual deviants in socialist countries. But they have always been extremely keen on such in non-socialist countries. Could it be because they see it undermining these societies from within?”

    No. It’s because they can use it to undermine you.

    Society’s norms change all the time. When society develops a new sympathy for some formerly persecuted underclass (like women, or the disabled, or baby polar bears), one that right-wingers can be relied upon to oppose, they use that to argue that the right-wingers are evil callous selfish bigots, and the only way to stop them and protect the baby polar bears from harm is to remove everybody’s freedoms. Society doesn’t like the idea of giving them power, but it has to concede the point when it sees exactly the individuals they’re pointing to stomping on the groups it sympathises with. So the left get power over the rest of society, and they get to paint their ideological opponents as wicked. Double win! It’s the bait in a trap.

    The trick is to recognise that it’s not the baby polar bears’ fault, and you don’t get anywhere by shouting insults at them. Quite the reverse.

    “So you are endorsing cultural Marxism then NiV.?”

    No, I’m just pointing out that *you* are endorsing cultural Stalinism. You should try getting out of your Stalinist bubble more.

    “The sex/gender correlation is about the only result in the social sciences where the R^2 value is so close to 1 as to make no difference, and yet they deny that it has any significance. Not Science.”

    Which “they” are you talking about? Some feminists made a point of claiming that gender was socially constructed, rather than being hardwired. Assuming you’re arguing they’re wrong, and the brain is clearly hardwired along separate male-typical and female-typical lines, why is it so hard to accept that the development process can go wrong, and that around 1% of people get the brain hardwiring of the other sex?

    “Close to 1” isn’t the same as “equal to 1”. It’s “not science” to say “0.99 = 1” any more than it is to say “2+2=5”.

  24. But “weirdies” just got redefined to point to racists, sexists, and homophobes instead.

    I thought they were “deplorables”. From a basket of some sort.
    “Weirdies” seems a reasonable description for people who think they are something they’re not. Whether it is thinking you’re a man/woman/dog/dragon/wizard /whatever, if you aren’t one, but insist you are, it’s a bit weird.

    One question NiV,
    Let’s for the sake of argument assume you’re right and these people are wrong bodied brains.
    What is with the people who are “gender-fluid” ie. Saying male one day, and woman the next. Or even swapping during the day.
    Mentally ill? Rapid brain structure change? Attention seeker?

  25. I’m a Stalinist? That’s a new one.

    NiV, if you were making the usual point you tend to make, you could just have said so. In point of fact, I embarked on reading your cut and paste in the expectation I was going to see something else. I gave up when I realised how long it was. It struck me as somewhat self-indulgent. That’s all. I’ve done the same thing with Mr Ecks’ most recent post. Sometimes I have the time and can be bothered, other times – not.

  26. NiV – “The question we are asking ourselves is: who here is on Stalin’s side on the issue of anti-Soviet ‘alternative’ sexuality?”

    Stalin also endorsed Pythagoras’ Theorem. Does that mean everyone who does primary school maths is a Communist?

  27. NiV – “Anyone who knows anything about the history of the left, and Stalin in particular, knows that they were all opposed to non-conformist LGBT sexuality.”

    No they were not. Stalin and the Soviet Union had a massive change of policy in the mid-1930s with divorce becoming harder, abortion becoming a crime – and homosexuality becoming illegal. Up to that point all those things had been encouraged by the Soviet Union. Hence the Cambridge Five.

    “Just as you echo the Muslim theocrats.”

    Even a pig rooting under an oak tree will find some acorns. So the Muslim theocrats are not as insane as your friends. So what?

    “Pro or anti-LGBT isn’t a matter of left or right – it’s a matter of authoritarian or libertarian.”

    Nonsense. Because the pro-Fruit Salad party is the most authoritarian group out there. Which is why they must be opposed.

    “Or to put it more precisely, it’s someone whose brain is wired according to the female pattern, (due to genetic factors like mutations in the androgen receptor gene stopping the developing fetus responding properly to dihydrotestosterone signals,) while the rest of their body is male.”

    There being no evidence of any of this whatsoever. There are genetic factors that make sex difficult to identify but that has nothing to do with the trans community and those people are mentally ill. Not genetically diverse.

    “So it’s the wiring of the brain that decides what ‘you’ are.”

    Which would be interesting if there was much evidence female brains were different from male brains – or any evidence that the mentally ill gender-non-conforming had different brains to their obvious sex.

    “But “weirdies” just got redefined to point to racists, sexists, and homophobes instead. Same dynamics, different target.”

    Well not really. No matter how much the Left tries this on the basic facts of sex, race and mental health remain the same. No matter what people do, the mentally ill will remain mentally ill.

    NiV
    “So the left get power over the rest of society, and they get to paint their ideological opponents as wicked. Double win! It’s the bait in a trap.”

    And so what? Your response is to pre-emptively give in?

    “The trick is to recognise that it’s not the baby polar bears’ fault, and you don’t get anywhere by shouting insults at them. Quite the reverse.”

    It is not the polar bears fault but the trans community is not made up of polar bears. It is made up of vicious intolerant head cases.

    “why is it so hard to accept that the development process can go wrong, and that around 1% of people get the brain hardwiring of the other sex?”

    Because there is no evidence of it. Because of sudden onset gender dysmorphia. If Bruce Jenner had been born unhappy and had consistently identified as a girl you might have had a point. But he was in fact perfectly happy as a man for many years. Until he wasn’t. Nor is there any evidence that he is now a woman. His interests seem to have remained the same – and manly. Just with fewer testicles.

  28. It is not a very kind thing to say but may I point out the obvious – they are no where as near to as fat and ugly as I thought they would be.

  29. Pingback: Normal Polyamorists | White Sun of the Desert

  30. If they want to be respected for their choices then they should at least make some fucking effort. Xander still looks like a chick clearly not have even bothered trying, and the other two like dudes although Rachel has at least attempted to look like a girl to be fair, just failed miserably at it.

    Shouldn’t a neutral gender dude be completely androgynous??

    We had a tranny god mother/father at my boys Baptism the other week. (S)he had put the effort in and I didn’t even realize it was a dude until (S)he spoke to me at the end. (Is my wife’s friend).

  31. non-conformist LGBT sexuality.

    I don’t know what non-conformist LGBT sexuality is and I would ask if I wanted to know. But I don’t. This might make me a stalinist.

    I’m with M’Lud on this except that I never read long posts by NiV or even short ones when he takes on all comers, so to say.

  32. NiV:““Pro or anti-LGBT isn’t a matter of left or right – it’s a matter of authoritarian or libertarian.””

    What the hell is ‘libertarian’ about pointing at the Sun and demanding all us Galileos say that it moves around the earth?

  33. Stalin also endorsed Pythagoras’ Theorem. Does that mean everyone who does primary school maths is a Communist?

    Just like all vegetarians are NSDAP supporters (as opposed to the common or garden ‘disagree with a SJW’ Nazis)?

  34. @ NiV
    I am reluctant to admit in public that any communist was right about anything because it is certain that it would be taken out of context, so I’ll skip all that.
    What appalled my generation was the frequency with which reported homosexuality coincided with sexual predation.
    I personally find the idea repulsive but not the non-predator, latent or actual, homosexuals/bisexuals that I do know/have known.
    You need to distinguish between the happily married couples, the promiscuous, the equivalents of Harvey Weinstein and those (allegedly) committing the majority of all rapes in the USA in federal prisons if you are to establish a dialogue with the less-bigoted readers.

  35. ““Weirdies” seems a reasonable description for people who think they are something they’re not.”

    That’s the point – they *don’t* think they’re something they’re not. They’re just using a different definition. It’s like two people arguing over how far a “mile” is, to discover one is talking about nautical miles and the other statute miles. The mistake is to think the definition *you* happen to use is the only possible one. Like, a mile is a mile, right?

    “Let’s for the sake of argument assume you’re right and these people are wrong bodied brains.
    What is with the people who are “gender-fluid” ie. Saying male one day, and woman the next. Or even swapping during the day.”

    Good question. I don’t know for sure – I’ve not seen any research on it. But I would presume it’s because their brain is closer to a 50:50 mixture of male and female pattern modules. The paper here describes this sort of “gender mosaic” brain.

    “I’m a Stalinist? That’s a new one.”

    I’ve pointed it out often enough before – historically the left have commonly been violently anti-LGBT. There’s nothing intrinsically to-the-left about LGBT rights. Being anti-LGBT is a Stalinist policy.

    I’m just commenting on the persistent conflation here of any support for LGBT rights with the left, and in particular, I found it funny that someone would call someone else a cretin for supporting/defending Stalin, in the process of themselves defending a Stalinist policy. It’s just the complete lack of historical awareness of what Socialism/Stalinism actually said and did that I found ironic.

    “I embarked on reading your cut and paste in the expectation I was going to see something else. I gave up when I realised how long it was.”

    We evidently have different standards of what counts as “long”. I’d already read about 5 times as much in the process of picking that bit out as the most relevant. But frankly, I think you could easily have figured out the point in the first two paragraphs – that Stalin and subsequent Soviets were anti-gay, that being anti-gay is a left-wing policy – and skimmed the rest.

    “Sometimes I have the time and can be bothered, other times – not.”

    I don’t have any problem with people not reading stuff. There’s lots of stuff on the internet I’m not interested in and haven’t read. I’m mainly commenting on the practice of *telling* me this, which I think is intended to make a different point entirely.

    “Stalin also endorsed Pythagoras’ Theorem. Does that mean everyone who does primary school maths is a Communist?”

    I’m commenting on the practice of assuming that because some leftists support LGBT rights, that everyone who supports LGBT rights is therefore a leftist.

    “What the hell is ‘libertarian’ about pointing at the Sun and demanding all us Galileos say that it moves around the earth?”

    Well first, fairly obviously, a more faithful analogy is that it’s the Catholic Church demanding conformity to fixed binary traditional sex roles and Galileo who is pointing out that reality isn’t like that.

    But more seriously, this is the same problem of confusing the enemy with the decoy. Whether a view is right or wrong is a separate issue to whether you’re allowed or forbidden to express it.

    The libertarian position on the former is that if it doesn’t do anyone else any harm (which being TG doesn’t) then society has no right to punish or prevent. (My scientific views on what causes transgenderism have nothing to do with libertarianism one way or the other, of course.) So libertarians support LGBT rights, in an equality-of-opportunity sense. But libertarians are *opposed* to politically correct speech codes disallowing anyone from criticising or disagreeing with this policy. Homophobes and transphobes may be *wrong*, but they have a right to express their opinions. Just as the Church should be allowed to continue to say that the sun orbits the Earth, and homosexuality is unnatural.

    So while I disagree with your opinions on TGs and will continue to debate them, I agree with you that you shouldn’t be stopped by force from holding those opinions. It’s the constant, repeated assumption that because I disagree with you on one, that I must therefore disagree with you on the other and support the SJWs imposition of politically correct limits on speech that I’m arguing with. It’s akin to me assuming that because you agree with Stalin on LGBT rights, that you agree with him on everything else too.

    “What appalled my generation was the frequency with which reported homosexuality coincided with sexual predation.”

    You could compare that to the typical media reporting on right-wingers. What behaviours are they most commonly associated with?

    But this is just the ‘Group A Group B trick’ again. Sexual predation is and should be illegal, full stop. You don’t need to make any other rules or laws beyond that one. Any other characteristic of the perpetrator is irrelevant to that, and to drag in everyone else who shares such an irrelevant characteristic is naughty. It’s like condemning all men as rapists and criminals.

    My point is that *I* make the distinction, and the more bigoted readers *don’t*.

  36. Shut up NIV!

    It’s not even that I disagree with you. I disagree with lots of people.

    It’s that you are a long-winded bore. And you’re not going to change any minds by being longer-winded and more boring.

  37. @Chester Draws

    These days I never get past;

    NiV

    Then it’s “scroll down”.

    Sometimes it’s a lot of scrolling.

  38. NiV, I don’t think I said anything about left wingers. It’s not a phrase I often use. And if your point was not in fact the one you usually make about latent totalitarianism etc., but was instead about left-wing fondness for hostility to homosexuality, why not just say so? I just did it in the space of two lines.

    Contrary to your exasperated snark that I knew exactly what your point was, I didn’t. Momentarily I was curious to find out what it was, then realised I could not be bothered and didn’t have time. And I’m glad I reached that conclusion, because it turns out you really could have said it in two lines.

  39. “NiV, I don’t think I said anything about left wingers. It’s not a phrase I often use.”

    Sure. But I was responding to the comments saying things like: “I well remember a cretin on this blog, years ago, arguing that Stalin was really a very nice chap and the numbers he murdered were facist, right wing propaganda.” That’s kinda about left-wingers, yes?

    “It’s that you are a long-winded bore. And you’re not going to change any minds by being longer-winded and more boring.”

    That’s OK. I don’t think your minds are capable of being changed. That’s not the point.

    And what would you say if I told you all to “shut up” about TGs? Do you think you’d respond positively? Do you think anyone should?

  40. NiV – “That’s the point – they *don’t* think they’re something they’re not. They’re just using a different definition.”

    No. They think they are something they are not. You can accept the real world or you can reject it. But you cannot pretend that rejection is just another definition of reality equal to the real world.

    “I’ve pointed it out often enough before – historically the left have commonly been violently anti-LGBT. There’s nothing intrinsically to-the-left about LGBT rights. Being anti-LGBT is a Stalinist policy.”

    You can point it out as much as you like. Because it is not true. Historically the Hard Left has been the main, in fact almost the only, supporter of devaluing normal society. That Stalin reversed course for a short time is meaningless. It is like saying that because Stalin fought with the West from 1941 to 1945 he wasn’t anti-Western. There are not enough LGBT people to make this insane movement on their own. They need the muscle, money and foot soldiers of the Marxists.

    “I’m commenting on the practice of assuming that because some leftists support LGBT rights, that everyone who supports LGBT rights is therefore a leftist.”

    I am sure there are some particularly autistic Libertarians as well. But on the whole it has been, it is, the Hard Left. That is why Peter Tatchell was going to conferences in Eats Germany and Cuba.

    “Well first, fairly obviously, a more faithful analogy is that it’s the Catholic Church demanding conformity to fixed binary traditional sex roles and Galileo who is pointing out that reality isn’t like that.”

    Except reality is like that. We are a species that is pretty much in line with fixed binary traditional sex roles. Any move from that only creates unhappiness and insanity.

    “The libertarian position on the former is that if it doesn’t do anyone else any harm (which being TG doesn’t)”

    Being TG may or may not. I think it does. But that it not what is at issue here. The TG movement certainly does a lot of other people harm. Hence it must be fought. If TGs don’t like that I suggest they distance themselves from it.

    “Just as the Church should be allowed to continue to say that the sun orbits the Earth, and homosexuality is unnatural.”

    Homosexuality is unnatural.

    “But this is just the ‘Group A Group B trick’ again. Sexual predation is and should be illegal, full stop. You don’t need to make any other rules or laws beyond that one.”

    Yes you do because Gay people, and I assume TGs, usually think their sexual predation on minors is cool. They are strong defenders of their own who do it. The present Leftist obsession with child abuse is just a stick to beat Catholics with. Before that they were praising it. After the Church is defeated they will be praising it again.

    “Any other characteristic of the perpetrator is irrelevant to that, and to drag in everyone else who shares such an irrelevant characteristic is naughty. It’s like condemning all men as rapists and criminals.”

    Except homosexuals do not breed so they need to recruit. It is inherent in the condition.

  41. “The libertarian position on the former is that if it doesn’t do anyone else any harm (which being TG doesn’t)…”

    The suicide stats (even AFTER mutilating surgery) seem to argue against your conclusion.

    Which you must find pretty commonplace with facts, though you do your best to compensate with snark and waffle.

  42. “No. They think they are something they are not. You can accept the real world or you can reject it. But you cannot pretend that rejection is just another definition of reality equal to the real world.”

    Wrong. They’re not claiming to be something they’re not. They’re using a different definition of certain words, and because you’re unable to accept that the rest of society could possibly define words differently to you, you *think* they’re denying reality.

    They’re not. YOU are.

    “The suicide stats (even AFTER mutilating surgery) seem to argue against your conclusion.”

    You don’t say which statistics you’re talking about, (as per usual around here) so it’s very hard to comment.

    The most commonly cited study used in this sort of argument is the one by Cecelia Dhejne – but everyone I’ve seen using it completely misunderstands what the results mean, and Cecelia herself has gone on the record to condemn the way her results have been misused. If that’s the one you mean, I can go into more detail about why they’re wrong, but there’s no point if that’s not your argument.

    However, my own views are based on stats like the outcomes of 28 long-term post-treatment follow up studies that indicate it works about 80% of the time.

    And my view on the high suicide rate is that it is driven only partly by the distress dysphoria causes, but mostly by the abuse and stigma imposed on them by a small and shrinking but still significant part of society.

    Some more stats for you: starting at page 11

    While the lifetime suicide attempt rate for TGs overall is about 42% as you know, it rises to 50% for those harassed or bullied at school, to 63% for those physically assaulted there, and to 73% for those sexually assaulted. Similarly for their treatment as adults: it rises to about 65% for those physically or sexually assaulted at work.

    It drops to 33% for those with families who accept their condition, but rises to around 49-55% with family rejection, and to 65% after suffering domestic violence from a family member.

    It rises to 60% in cases where a doctor refuses treatment for being transgender. And in cases of interaction with the police, those that have been treated with respect have the background rate of 41%, but that rises to 60-70% where TGs have been harassed or physically/sexually assaulted by the police.

    Suicide and mental illness I believe are caused primarily by the way society treats them; by living constantly with the stress and fear. That abuse does not end after surgery. Indeed, it can be even harder to escape from, because pre-surgery you can switch back to presenting as your birth sex in dangerous situations, but aftwards you can’t so easily hide what you are. I’m not surprised that suicide rates don’t drop to the whole-population background level after surgery, but I genuinely don’t see how that argues against my conclusion.

    So would you be willing to expand on your argument, and explain what you meant? Preferably without any snark and waffle! 🙂

  43. They’re using a different definition of certain words, and because you’re unable to accept that the rest of society could possibly define words differently to you, you *think* they’re denying reality.

    I’m not convinced that society has redefined the definitions. At least among my social and work environments. There is a TG in the factory I work in. Nobody cares. But they still refer to him as a him, even though he now has tits and calls himself Natasha or Sally or something (don’t know, don’t care).

    Trying to impose new definitions on a society is just going to build resentment.


    Suicide and mental illness I believe are caused primarily by the way society treats them; by living constantly with the stress and fear.

    This welcoming society that has changed definitions to accommodate?

    Here’s a theory.
    Any society, to last and be stable, has to have feedback responses that curtail behaviours that aren’t to society’s benefit.
    Could it be that the unwelcoming response to TG behaviours, and more hostile response to being told that we have to let dudes with dicks into ladies rooms, is an indicator that these behaviours aren’t beneficial to society’s wellbeing?

  44. NiV – “Wrong. They’re not claiming to be something they’re not.”

    Of course they are. There is not a single scientific test that would show these people are anything other than the sex they had when they were born. Every single one of Bruce Jenner’s cells is full of X and Y chromosomes. His bone structure, once he is dead, is typically male. He is male.

    “They’re using a different definition of certain words,”

    Sure. They are mentally ill. They think reality is optional. It isn’t.

    “However, my own views are based on stats like the outcomes of 28 long-term post-treatment follow up studies that indicate it works about 80% of the time.”

    A study that is by its own admission useless and it does not say what you claim it does. It claims improvement. Nothing more.

    “And my view on the high suicide rate is that it is driven only partly by the distress dysphoria causes, but mostly by the abuse and stigma imposed on them by a small and shrinking but still significant part of society.”

    Of course. The mentally ill usually think it is the fault of everyone but themselves.

    “Suicide and mental illness I believe are caused primarily by the way society treats them; by living constantly with the stress and fear.”

    Then there should be lower rates in Thailand and higher rates in the Middle East. Are there?

  45. “Any society, to last and be stable, has to have feedback responses that curtail behaviours that aren’t to society’s benefit.”

    It’s an interesting theory.

    Our society in the past at various times has curtailed atheism, Catholicism, Protestantism, pornography, prostitution, drinking, drug-taking, and swearing. Women have been discouraged or prevented from voting, owning property, working, wearing trousers, wearing revealing clothes, and being left unattended with men not of their immediate family.

    Present day society has laws to curtail smoking in public places, gun ownership, hunting with dogs, racism, sexism, islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia.

    And other totalitarian societies have frequently forbidden people with the wrong politics or religion. You can come up with your own examples. They all make the same argument for it:- it’s for the common good, to guard public morality and social stability.

    Should we therefore conclude that all of these are prevented because they’re not to society’s benefit? Given that the rules keep on changing, how can both a thing and its opposite *both* be contrary to society’s benefit?

    Humans all have an authoritarian instinct – we are prodnoses who like to impose our own rules on others. But the rules imposed are often arbitrary and/or unecessary. For some cases, any rule will do so long as everyone does the same, like driving on the left hand side of the road. Other rules, like those on what consenting adults get up to in private, create conflict for no reason.

    That’s why JS Mill had to invent the Harm Principle, to distinguish the rules we actually needed as a society from those that the authoritarian prodnoses wanted for their own purposes, for the sake of their own power over others.

    But it’s hard. Prodnoses generally don’t realise that’s what they are. They all, without exception, think their rules are the only right and proper way to run a society, and they’re fully justified in imposing their restrictions. “It’s for their own good, and for the good of society.”

    “There is not a single scientific test that would show these people are anything other than the sex they had when they were born.”

    And this is precisely my point! They’re not claiming to be of the other *sex*, they’re claiming to be of the other *gender*!

    They define “man” and “woman” using a person’s gender, not their sex. They claim to be of a different sex to their gender. And someone with male sex and female gender is a “woman” when “woman” is by convention being used to refer to a person’s gender!

    “Then there should be lower rates in Thailand and higher rates in the Middle East. Are there?”

    Thailand’s reputation as trans-tolerant is misleading. A UN report said of it: “However, this is only an image projected on the surface, often by Thailand’s Tourism Authority, to attract foreign LGBT tourists.” Local opinion polls are less accepting than in the UK.

    But it’s a very good question! I can’t find any country-by-country suicide figures on a quick search. If you’ve got some, I’d be interested.

  46. we are prodnoses who like to impose our own rules on others

    Speak for yourself. Some of us just want to be left alone and have no interest in what other people are up to, as long as it doesn’t affect us too much.

    Prodnoses generally don’t realise that’s what they are.

    Do you realise that on this subject, that’s what you are? And others like you.
    Society was functioning pretty well with the definitions of men and women that we had, and any of the vanishingly small number outside those definitions were just considered to be weirdos.
    Now, people like yourself, run around telling us all how wrong we all are, how bigoted, how Stalinist because we resist using these random, confusing, words for gender pronouns and refuse to agree that there are 30 genders (random number).
    There is no payoff for me to learn these pronouns. I don’t know anyone with this brand of mental illness/transgendered. So why would I bother?
    If they want to be that way, that’s fine. Just leave me out of it and stop trying to force society to go along with the charade.

  47. “Some of us just want to be left alone and have no interest in what other people are up to, as long as it doesn’t affect us too much.”

    That’s what I want for everyone.

    “Society was functioning pretty well with the definitions of men and women that we had, and any of the vanishingly small number outside those definitions were just considered to be weirdos.”

    It wasn’t functioning well for the people who got classified as “weirdos”.

    “Now, people like yourself, run around telling us all how wrong we all are, how bigoted, how Stalinist because we resist using these random, confusing, words for gender pronouns and refuse to agree that there are 30 genders (random number).”

    Again, you’re confusing people like me with people like them.

    I’m not telling you that you have to learn lots of new pronouns. None of my TG friends would, either. (They’d settle for just not getting hassled about it.) Most TG people are not like that, and 99% of the people who *are* like that are not TG. The jargon’s there for people who want more precise terms to express subtle distinctions of meaning, but everyone knows it’s confusing and most TG people are not going to be bothered by anyone who is honestly not trying to offend getting it wrong. It’s like with women, where you’re not sure if they’re a ‘Mrs’ or a ‘Miss’. The world isn’t going to end if you use the wrong one.

    If you all choose to talk about it and say stuff that’s untrue, I’m going to say so. But I consider that a matter for debate, not law.

    “There is no payoff for me to learn these pronouns. I don’t know anyone with this brand of mental illness/transgendered. So why would I bother?”

    You almost certainly *do* know people with gender dysphoria – they’re just too scared to tell you.

    But I wouldn’t propose you pay any attention to it, any more than I’d recommend memorising the correct form of address for a Duke or Baroness. It’s not a subject that comes up often for most people.

    In fact, that’s the weird thing about the discussion here – for such a tiny group of people, who you’ve never knowingly met, and which you supposedly don’t care about or want to know about, the subject comes up with absolutely *amazing* frequency! Why do you keep on discussing it constantly, if you’re not interested and don’t want to hear about it? Why does Tim keep on putting up post after post on the subject, and why do people fill the comments with angry invective about it, month after month, year after year?

    Because it’s certainly not *me* that keeps bringing the subject up! I’d be just as happy not to hear about it. Why do you think you all do that?

  48. NiV – “Women have been discouraged or prevented from voting, owning property, working, wearing trousers, wearing revealing clothes, and being left unattended with men not of their immediate family.”

    Good times.

    “They all make the same argument for it:- it’s for the common good, to guard public morality and social stability.”

    And the fact that second smoke is harmless does not mean second hand cyanide is not dangerous.

    “That’s why JS Mill had to invent the Harm Principle, to distinguish the rules we actually needed as a society from those that the authoritarian prodnoses wanted for their own purposes, for the sake of their own power over others.”

    Indeed. And this is the problem. As long as the Trans community was happy with their Care in the Community I did not care. They could be as mentally ill as they liked. But when they started getting people fired and trying to get people jailed for expressing an opinion, they crossed Mill’s line. You side with them or you side with us. We have the numbers and we are not mentally ill. But you chose poorly.

    “And this is precisely my point! They’re not claiming to be of the other *sex*, they’re claiming to be of the other *gender*!”

    That is, they are deluded. Verbs have gender. People do not. They are the sex they were born. If they cannot deal with that they need medical help, not surgery.

    “They define “man” and “woman” using a person’s gender, not their sex.”

    And some girls define themselves as fat even as they starve to death. We do not celebrate anorexia.

    “Thailand’s reputation as trans-tolerant is misleading.”

    Indeed. Everyone who has to deal with the trans knows they are f*cking insane.

    “That’s what I want for everyone.”

    No it isn’t. Because you are part of the problem. You are part of the lobby that is seeking to jail people for not holding politically correct opinions.

    “It wasn’t functioning well for the people who got classified as “weirdos”.”

    They were better off in 1900 than they are today. We have not got better at treating the really mentally ill

    “Again, you’re confusing people like me with people like them.”

    You are people like them.

    “You almost certainly *do* know people with gender dysphoria – they’re just too scared to tell you.”

    The number is trivial. Not more than a few thousand in the whole of the UK. So no, he doesn’t in all likelihood.

  49. NiV: ’So would you be willing to expand on your argument, and explain what you meant? Preferably without any snark and waffle! ’

    Seems SMFS beat me to it! 😀

  50. “No it isn’t. Because you are part of the problem. You are part of the lobby that is seeking to jail people for not holding politically correct opinions.”

    There are two separate issues. Whether your opinions are wrong, andwhether you should be jailed for holding them.

    My position is that you’re wrong, but you shouldn’t be jailed for saying it. Don’t mix the two positions up.

    And also that you’d be more persuasive in getting society to make room for you, even when they don’t agree with you, if you were more openly tolerant of people you yourself don’t agree with. Recognise who’s an enemy and who’s a victim, even if they’re victims in a different cause.

    “Seems SMFS beat me to it!”

    SMFS didn’t provide an explanation of what you was talking about with the suicide stats. I’m still interested.

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.