Seems unlikely really

Lesbian are facing “extinction” because of the “disproportionate” focus on transgenderism in schools, a controversial campaign group for gay rights has claimed.

Every generation seems to breed its own lesbians anew. Thus extinction seems unlikely.

On Wednesday, Ofcom chief Melanie Dawes said it would be “entirely inappropriate” for the BBC to approach groups like the LGB Alliance to “balance” debates around trans issues after SNP MP John Nicolson, a homosexual, described them as “transphobic”.

Seems odd. If you want to have a debate about trans then don;t you rather need people who are against it as well as people in favour? That is, assume the accusation is correct – it ain’t – then they’re exactly the people you want for balance.

20 thoughts on “Seems unlikely really”

  1. Well, they don’t want to have a debate about trans. Either you accept that some people are ‘born in the wrong body’ and that only highly-invasive surgery can fix it, or you’re a fucking transphobe who denies their very existence.

    The point about lesbians becoming extinct is that the very concept is mutually exclusive with trans. Either you believe that some human beings are attracted to people of the same gender as them – ie they’re gay or lesbian – or you believe that human beings are only attracted to people of the opposite gender to them. In transworld, a person who is attracted to the same gender does so because they are in the “wrong” body: they are trans.

    The greatest trick the trannies ever pulled was to convince the gays and lesbians they were on the same side. They are not. They are in fact mortal enemies: they effectively believe that there are no lesbian and gay people, just people in the wrong body who haven’t been fixed by surgery yet.

  2. “If you want to have a debate about trans then don;t you rather need people who are against it as well as people in favour? ”
    Yes, but, the LGB lesbians were apparently being brought on as the T side of the debate, even though that’s a non overlapping part of the alphabet soup.

  3. aaa – Well, they don’t want to have a debate about trans.

    +1. See also: climate change, abortion, diversity, and gay rights.

    There was no debate about whether our thousands of years old understanding of marriage should be radically changed so Elton John could have a fabulous wedding. The establishment (“conservative” wing) just sprung it on us like surprise sex from Jimmy Savile, then congratulated itself on its moral courageousness.

    The emergence of blokes in dresses as the woke cause du jour immediately after gay marriage was imposed on the western world by establishment fiat isn’t a coinkydink. Progressivism can’t, by definition, sit still. It’s an unholy jihad on everything sane and normal led by an effete and wretched class of dissolute Eloi like the ones in memorable LSD-ocumentary Zardoz, and the only proven cure is magnificent African lions – and lots of em.

    Celebrate Pride

  4. The word controversial seems to have confronted “reasonable”, “understandable” and “deserves to be heard” and taken their lunch money.

  5. @ aaa:

    ” In transworld, a person who is attracted to the same gender does so because they are in the “wrong” body: they are trans.”

    Not quite; trannies believe they are in the ‘wrong’ body, it’s true, but they may be attracted to either sex.
    The irony is that the idea that sex and gender are different things, essential to ‘trans’ ideology, is a feminist one.

  6. Jon – IIUIC, it’s competing mental delusions.

    Radfems believe that biological sex is real, but the various sociocultural consequences that flow from it (“gender”) are fake, and all a conspiracy by men to force women to hoover the living room and make them sandwiches or whatever.

    Trannies believe gender is real, but biological sex is fake because trivial things such as being a hulking 6 foot 4 tighthead prop with a large feminine penis and stubble you could light matches off of doesn’t stop you from being a beautiful UwU Japanese schoolgirl if you feel like it.

    They’re both fucking nuts, but the trannies are winning because they’re men.

  7. Of note is the fact that these trans women often have a girlfriend or even wife ie that jenner freak. no doubt that izzard character still wants to shag women. It’s as if their sexual preferences don’t change and they continue to act like their actual sex.

    i hate the word progressive because as far as I can see, everything they like makes the world a bit worse.

  8. Bloke in North Dorset

    The debate isn’t about whether there are Trans people or not, there are but not the bearded nutters in frocks, the serious ones like Deirdre McCloskey, and they deserve our sympathy and compassion.

    To the extent there is any Trans debate its about whether aforementioned bearded nutters should be able to use women’s changing rooms, go to women’s prisons, use rape crises centres etc. Even then its going to be a very short debate: What part of no, fuck off, don’t you understand.

  9. Even then its going to be a very short debate: What part of no, fuck off, don’t you understand.

    You wouldn’t last long with the modern Army’s MATTS diversity training …

  10. Bloke in North Dorset

    You wouldn’t last long with the modern Army’s MATTS diversity training …

    Are you saying that in the ’80s threatening to rip off one of my (male) corporals’ ears because he was going out wearing an earing wouldn’t be acceptable now 🙂

  11. I just wish the Discovery Channel would ditch Dr “Lynette” Nusbacher. Cirrusly, there is no need to parade delusion. As Julia says, stop indulging them.

    “they deserve our sympathy and compassion.”

    I just want it off my fvcking TV screen.

    Gamecock chooses who he has sympathy and compassion for. The WokenSS doesn’t.

    “No tyranny can withstand deliberate noncooperation.” – GC

  12. They’re both fucking nuts, but the trannies are winning because they’re men.

    I know (vaguely) three trannies. The only (vaguely) sensible one is the female->male. I have no problem accepting him as a (vaguely odd) bloke because that’s all he wants – to just quietly be a bloke – with no fuss, no posturing, no attention, no sympathy, no special pleading. He hates the trans movement, probably more than we do. Sure, he’s a desperately lonely, miserable alcoholic. So are a lot of blokes.

    One of the two male->female is a mostly harmless sad twat (that’s as close as Tabatha gets) who nevertheless can’t help constantly bringing up the trans subject. The other is an evil cunt (Samantha’s even further off) who’s leapt on the bandwagon of madness to cover that he sexually abused his children. Milks the system for all it’s worth (complete with Pythonesque voice) and everyone who knows him fucking hates him. The world would be a better place if a rusty tractor was reversed slowly over him, starting with his “surgically perfect lady parts that not even a consultant gynaecologist could detect”. The most unfortunate part of his tale of “being raped whilst studying at Cambridge” is that he was never there and avoided the services of the brothers Bastardos and their friends, the fifteen balding Iraqis.

    The male trannies may be “winning” but it won’t be for long. Either we worms turn and shut them the fuck up, or we collapse and our brutal replacements batter the fuck out of them and finish them off with an anal hot-pockering. There’s always a silver lining.

    (and don’t be such a hater, Steve)

  13. So Much For Subtlety

    Bloke in North Dorset December 26, 2020 at 3:10 pm – “The debate isn’t about whether there are Trans people or not, there are but not the bearded nutters in frocks, the serious ones like Deirdre McCloskey, and they deserve our sympathy and compassion.”

    No they do not. They are all fucking nuts. The fact that McCloskey can pass as a normal upper middle class academic – as if you could detect one dried sultana in that barrel of fruits and nuts – does not change that. In DM case, an academic wrote something DM did not like. So DM campaigned to have him fired and jailed. McCloskey deserves no pity whatsoever.

    My own view is to think of Kissinger’s quip that it is a pity they both can’t lose. I am perfectly happy to kick back in my comfy chair and watch them tear each other to bits. Can they both lose? They can, Dear Reader, they can.

  14. They may not tear each other to bits but a rapidly growing and fundamentally intolerant element of our population may introduce them to the joys of involuntary skydiving.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *