A militant transgender group has urged supporters to target Wes Streeting’s office as part of a direct action campaign.
In a guide distributed to activists, Bash Back instructs them to cause “direct harm” with “lasting effect”.
Borrowing the methods of direct action campaigns organised by pro-Palestinian and environmental activists, the group is urging supporters to identify “transphobic” targets and then “hit them repeatedly until they desist from their activities”.
Erm, doesn’t trans mean “not”?
But, anyway, if prominent politicians require protection why should this only be for those politicians in office? Why not also for Establishment outsiders?
Or have we already answered that question?
We must be due a regular reminder that most terrorism is right wing.
Trans people are a fiction and are just being used here as an excuse for violence. In the same way that the Pro Palestine mob are Pro something and definitely NOT antisemites…
See also “I am only mutilating this work of art to stop Polar bears frying!”…
trans people are not a fiction but are extremely rare, as are conjoined twins or XXY chromosomes. I suppose we should be glad that no-one has yet used conjoined twins as an excuse for violence.
There is no such thing as an “other side of” person. This would imply they are not a person at all, so what would they be? What is on the other side of person?
Words take on the meaning ascribed to them even if the OED has to blink. This example is more Humpty Dumpty than Newspeak.
Men who think they are women and vice versa are a thing. A tiny minority of people far outnumbered by the activists who spew their hatred both online and off. Bash Back is an example of this. Run by one sad little man with pink hair (last time I checked) who may, or may not belong to this group, but is certainly a nasty, violent little thug. He is also pro Pally and anti Israel and all the other ridiculous accoutrements of the extreme left.
The transApline lands are the lands beyond the Alps, where you have left the Alps behind, where you are no longer in the Alps.
A transperson is somebody who has gone beyond “person”, has left “person”ness behind, is no longer a “person”.
See. English is easy.
John – trans people are not a fiction but are extremely rare, as are conjoined twins or XXY chromosomes
Depends what you mean.
Medically, we know nobody is born in the “wrong” body. Tranny woo about having ladybrains has been disproved by brain scans. Big Trans loves to bring up the intersex, as meat shields, but the intersex are still biologically male or female, not “trans”. They have a physical mutation which they were born with, this has nothing to do with 47 year old fathers changing their name to Barbara or 14 year old girls wanting to get their tits cut off so they can look like K Pop singers.
Psychologically, the term “trans” may have some value, describing a mental pathology. But psychologically, *trans women” are stereotypically very male, with stereotypical male interests such as Linux development, Rust and masturbating in front of a computer. That’s why they’re promoting violence here as the solution to their problems. “Trans men” don’t have the same aggression, because they’re women.
“Trans” imo is just a social term of preference, like the Chinese calling them “renyao” (human monsters).
Cool! Evidence! Links?
NiV, the evidence says you will never be a real woman. You have no womb, you have no ovaries, you have no eggs.
That’s a brain scan, is it?
(And doesn’t your definition of a woman mean that a hysterectomy turns you into a man?)
And doesn’t your definition of a woman mean that a hysterectomy turns you into a man?
No. Nice try tho.
Oh, no, not that one, FFS! That’s about as stupid as ‘you have a gender neutral toilet in your home.’ As Steve says, nice try, no cigar. JKR might let you have one, though.
Checking if they smoke cigars is another male/female definition people sometimes use, but it has the same problem. Every definition you pick has exceptions. But when people offer facile definitions and endlessly get the exceptions pointed out they never notice the pattern and think ‘There’s something wrong with my logic here’. They just move smoothly to another facile definition, endlessly.
That there are some (rare) shades of ‘grey’ does not imply that the (normal) ‘black’ and ‘white’ binary is false/inappropriate/discriminatory/etc. People who imagine they are the opposite sex need psychiatric help; hermaphrodites etc need surgical help and more.
Matt Walsh summed it up beautifully once. A human being with one leg merely tells us that something is wrong, not that humans should have normally have but one leg.
My logic is just fine. I can see a stupid argument when I see one.
“But psychologically, *trans women” are stereotypically very male, with stereotypical male interests such as Linux development, Rust and masturbating in front of a computer.”
What’s the Rust and trannies thing about? I looked into Rust and it’s an interesting approach to avoiding memory leaks, but decided against learning it because it’s just too much of a niche. I can’t get that bothered about speed.
These guys, probably.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/surrealdb_women-in-rust-activity-7204477387101667328-3Y_K
It’s becoming (more) common in systems and embedded environments that would otherwise be written in C or (shudder) C++. If that’s where you work then it’s worth getting at least a passing acquaintance with Rust.
Idk why but Rust is heavily colonised by trannies. They love it. Same with emulator development (you know how impressive building a virtual machine with accurate timing of the custom chip set in software is, proper coding that requires very masculine techy talent and autism to get right – which is why you never see Indians in the emu scene. And you will never see a woman slaving over VIM at 3am with a can of Red Bull to correct a sound chip bug on an Acorn Archimedes emulator) Also speed running, which is possibly the most masculine activity possible – girls have better things to do than spend 10,000 hours on GoldenEye 64.
“Trans women” almost always have extremely masculine interests. In Blanchard’s typology, these are the “autogynephile” types, otherwise known as “hons”. Very often heterosexual men who have shagged women and fathered children. Lots of square-jawed ex-military men in skirts. The big lanky lads who easily win all those women’s sporting competitions. Usually a late life phenomenon, acquired due to latent (or not) transvestite paraphilias, escalated by internet pornography addiction, modern societal anomie, and the classic male midlife crisis. Except instead of a red sports car he’s in red lipstick.
The other Blanchard type is HSTS, who are extremely effeminate, homosexual men trying to make themselves sexually desirable to straight men. They usually “pass” a lot better than the average hon, start a lot earlier in life, and are prostitutes. Thai ladyboys, Ru Paul’s Drag Race queens, and Brazilian travesti are not the same type of transsexual as Admiral Rachel Levine. They don’t do software development and spend more time on makeup, but their interests are still masculine (anal sex). The HSTS are the quieter, less numerous, and less militant type of tranny. The most aggressive ones are the heteros.
Learning about this stuff is like opening the Necronomicon, fascinating and horrifying at the same time, and makes you realise exactly what kind of Hell they unleashed on children when they started pushing LGBTQ at school. This is a sickness that we can trace back to Kinsey, I think? The desire to, as they put it in their academic literature, to “queer” spaces seems to be functionally indistinguishable from disgusting, pervy nonces who shouldn’t be allowed within a mile of a school.
Argh. I’ve written several Z80 emulators, a PDP11 emulator, a 6502 emulator, and a 6809 emulator. I’ve spent the last two weeks up to my elbows in floating point trig/log PDP11 code. Is I trans?????
ARGH!!!! Trigs and Logs are trancendental functions!!!! OH NOES!!! I’m TRANS!!!!! IT’S SO CLEAR NOW!
Which is all we need to know. I absolutely accept that not all are a direct threat but you can’t trust anyone with such a faint grip on reality.
My uncle Jim wasn’t a bad man, but he was a paranoid schizophrenic and thus not suited to daily life although he did try god love him.
I reckon it’s because it’s the new thing. C is “finished”, unless you like spending your time in committee meetings rather than getting real work done.
It’s a lot easier to get attention by writing the new HTTP library that becomes the standard go-to in something new and hip, than trying to displace something like numpy.
They always, always wheel out intersex if you get into any type of discussion with them, because everything they come out with doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. So once you hacked though all the circular arguments and made up woo, you end up with ‘yes, but what about intersex?’ That’s when you’ve finally exhausted every stupid talking point they have.
A zillion upticks. The fossil records of your hips will show which of the two sexes you were for millennia.
There are no trans people, only a particular shade of mentally ill men and women, including tireless loons spouting thousands of words of specious bullshit. Probably in an ill-fitting frock.
Yup. The hips don’t lie.
Two questions:
How is this not incitement to violence or some such arrestable offense?
Why Wes Streeting specifically?
As health sec he was against hormones trials on children IIRC.
And much as I despise the man, he is right on this one.
Because he has a face that one would never tire of punching?
Laws are to be applied to people the blob considers oppressors, not people the blob considers oppressed.
Conspiracy to commit crime.
In US, conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor can be a FELONY.
But your political police force is indifferent.
Keep attacking people who are scared of you until they are no longer scared of you? They aren’t doing much to counter the argument that they’re mental.
Too much advice on how not to get caught for insanity to be really plausible: looks evil to me.
trans means (or, at least, used to mean) across
Quite so. The “transmontane” Catholics were accused by the British Establishment of having loyalties that lay “across the mountains”. The “mountains” meant were the Alps, so their ultimate loyalty was to Italy = Rome = the Pope, not to Britain. In reaction there grew up a group who called themselves “cismontane”, Catholics whose primary loyalty lay on “this side” of the mountains, to England and its monarch, not the Pope.
Yes, that’s where I thought this usage as a pair of opposite prefixes originated.
Odd that a term for Catholic factions became used for cross-dressing.
Are you sure it wasn’t in “De Bello Gallico”?
It is. In classical Rome “Gallia Cisalpina” meant Gaul on “this side” of the Alps, i.e., modern northern Italy. “Gallia Transalpina” was Gaul on the other side of the Alps, or modern France.
The Austro Hungarian Empire sometimes called its two halves Cisleithania and Translethania.
The river Leitha was seen as the boundary : ‘This’ ie cis side of the Leitha was Austrian, ‘beyond’ or trans was Hungarian.
Also the Gross Fuerstentum von Siebenbürgen was called in Latin Transylvania .
Didn’t Transalpine and Cisalpine Gaul predate that?
Well, the religious hierarchy (CoE as well as RC) do go in for cross dressing in a big way.
Indeed, their whole religion is built on a cross.
Is there a word for those whose religious loyalties lie on the other side of the Mediterranean?
Curiously, a lot of them wear long dresses too.
On this one, I’m on the side of the trannies. Well done those men in frocks! They’ve worked that when you can’t succeed by democratic means, use the extra-democratic good & hard. Doubt if it will succeed in this case but it’s the principal
And will the right learn from this? I very much doubt it. It prefers to keep honourably failing.
“Noble losers” I call them.
They won’t be arrested by British police, might be considered sexist or something.
Also possibly dangerous, at least by the usual police on camera these days. Better go find a housewife to arrest for a mean tweet instead, it’s a safer use of their shift.
So they will eventually be successful in shutting things down; eventually you get tired of being attacked in the street by thugs immune to the law.
Learn what? That the state is now against you? That’s pretty obvious.
The problem is that right-wing people have a stake in the status quo. So they are understandably reluctant to violate those norms.
The Left have been using violence to try and get their way since the 1960’s and they’ve produced a huge amount of literature on the subject. By now they’re well funded and well trained in the art.
They have doing it for a lot longer than that. I can remember being physically attacked in 1951 because their parents assumed that my parents voted Conservative. That is how I learned to fight.
Advocating for violence since…1850-ishish.. Actually using it at scale since 1917…
The French Revolution was 1789, where the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ for political sides originated. The Levellers (with similar views) started in the 1600s.
Nah… the Levellers are definitely 1988….
There’s only one way of life, and thats your own……
Trans- is Latin for “other side of”. Cis- is Latin for “this side of”. Hence: Cis-Alpine (this side of the Alps) Gaul was what is now northern Italy; Trans-Alpine (other side of the Alps) Gaul was now what is Switzerland, Germany, France, etc.
Trans-Atlantic – other side of the Atlantic which is North America if you are in the UK, the UK if you are in North America. Of course we in the UK could say we are Cis-Atlantic or North Americans could says they were Cis-Atlantic… a matter of perspective.
The term “transgender” – other side of gender, and cisgender – this side of gender, is gobbledygook, not least because “gender” is a component of linguistics not biology, and a mind-worm of the mentally afflicted.
They also need to specify which one of the 32 genders they are trans of.
I love that little text box on surveys for the nutters to say which made up gender they believe they are – it gives me space to write ‘this is bollocks!’ or similar….
‘Bollocks’ or ‘No bollocks’
I’ve looked at lists of these “genders”. By thir descriptions they’re indistinguishable from each other. Essentially, ISTM you have male, female, and poncing about.
Your gender is either on the same side as your sex or on the opposite side. Obviously.
It comes from the Latin ‘genus’ via early French ‘gendre’ and Middle English: ‘type’, ‘category’, ‘sort of thing’. It acquired a connection to sex from linguistics, but it was the linguists that confused sex and gender, not the biologists.
Your gender is either on the same side as your sex or on the opposite side. Obviously.
That’s because gender is a psychosocial construction, but obviously a man who is effeminate is still a man. A very fabulous man.
Self ID has rendered the term gender almost useless and tranny activists seem to think it describes their soul, the “authentic” (i.e. fake) projected sense of self that so fascinated Narcissus. Because gender is a psychosocially defined set theory, Kevin the hairy biker telling us he feels pretty has no normative value, because society is never going to agree to see Kevella as the willowy Dutch girl he’d rather be.
That’s certainly what the early Marxist Feminists claimed. The differences between men and women in society were supposedly all due to upbringing and the expectations of parents and society, and if you brought up boys and girls in the same gender-neutral way the patriarchy would be overthrown and women would become the equal of men in the sciences and leadership. And men would become interested in flower-arranging and fashion and love kittens like women. Sex-roles are defined by society, and so we can redefine them to something better.
Personally, I think they were wrong, although the world would be very boring indeed if everyone agreed on everything. I’m surprised to find *you* agreeing with them, though!
Personally, I think they were wrong, although the world would be very boring indeed if everyone agreed on everything. I’m surprised to find *you* agreeing with them, though!
But I don’t. Gender is a psychosocial category, which exists independently of biological reality.
And because of the social part, there aren’t in fact 57 genders. Because society doesn’t agree. People claiming to be a different gender to their sex are just making gender meaningless, because as you mentioned earlier gender etymologically means “type”, and if we lack common agreement on classification of types, we enter struggle session territory.
Prior to the great tranny eruption of 2015, the term “gender” was usually only used as a mistaken synonym for biological sex, or to try to make feminism sound like it had something to offer men (“gender equality”). Apres le deluge, “gender” has increasingly been used to suggest some kind of heretical body/soul dualism – “I’m biologically male but my gender is female”. Well, no it isn’t Dave.
A common misconception. The modern conception of gender is biological too. It’s not body/soul dualism but brain/non-brain dualism.
The purpose of a struggle session is to enforce a common agreement on classification of types.
The purpose of a struggle session is to enforce a common agreement on classification of types.
You are correct. The trannies lost, Mumsnet won. Hence “Trans Bash Back”. Although it really doesn’t matter what society does to accommodate them, they were still unhappy and mentally ill even when they were allowed to use the women’s toilets.
It’s like feminism – the more you concede to them, the unhappier they are. Feminism and transgender were basically social shit tests, the struggle session you mentioned. Our society failed both, bigly, but is walking back the latter. Most of these people just secretly yearn for a real man to take charge with his fascist confidence and firm spankings for naughty behaviour. It was a mistake to take seriously the psychodramas of ugly female academics and Loretta. The kind of arts student females who vote Green would prefer to be dominated by a (handsome) Patriarchy that puts babies in them and tells them to make a sandwich, and their “politics” is “notice me, Daddy”. Most of leftism is just oppositional defiance disorder and antisocial personality traits baiting your response – you don’t debate such people, you correct them like you would an errant child or ill-bred dog.
The reason they’re always screaming about fascism is because they’re desperate for fascism. Unfortunately, as with white racism, the demand far exceeds what most right wing people are willing to supply.
The modern conception of gender is biological too. It’s not body/soul dualism but brain/non-brain dualism
How does that work?
They *said* they did, and lots of people believe them.
I’m sure I’ve explained this before. The SRY gene on the Y chromosome triggers a cascade of signalling hormones in the womb that trigger thousands of other genes to turn on and off all over the body to implement changes in the brain, genitals, and other organs. But the sex-linked correlations vary from 60/40 to 99.9/0.1, because nature is imperfect and a lot of the genes don’t switch as they should. *Everybody* has *some* characteristics more common in the other sex. *Some* people have *lots* of mixed-up features.
If the non-brain part of the body has mixed-up features, some associated with one sex and others with the other, they’re called intersex. If the brain has features more common in the other sex compared to the rest of the body, it’s not visible, except as a change in behaviour.
Because of our history of soul/body dualism and because some people think human behaviour is all cultural, the assumption is made that sex-linked behaviour is not biological in origin. But if you accept that the brain is just another organ of the body, its wiring is a matter of physical biology, the distinction you’re really making is not soul/body but brain/non-brain.
There’s an alternative interpretation that says male behaviour *is* hard-wired in boys, but asserts without evidence that nature *never ever gets this wrong*. It may sometimes mess up the external features, but can never mess up the brain. To be honest, I thought that was the interpretation you subscribed to. Hence my surprise at seeing you espouse the Marxist Feminist ‘it’s all psychosocial’ theory, where gender is malleable and defined by society.
The question is, what is going on with the boys who like playing house and want dollies. Learnt from society? Or biology?
Because of our history of soul/body dualism and because some people think human behaviour is all cultural, the assumption is made that sex-linked behaviour is not biological in origin
That’s what most trannies now claim – that while is no biological basis for being “trans”, they have a “gender” (by which they functionally mean “soul”) which is somehow unfortunately the opposite sex of their biological bodies.
But they don’t have dainty little women’s brains. Transgender “medicine” is based on the mystical belief that patients have a “gender” which is independent of their hairy biological bodies, and the bodies must be surgically and chemically corrected to resemble (very poorly, in 9/10 cases) their gender identity, which is why for a long time they’ve been using the euphemism “gender affirming care”.
Hence my surprise at seeing you espouse the Marxist Feminist ‘it’s all psychosocial’ theory, where gender is malleable and defined by society.
Hence my surprise, that people keep reading words I didn’t write into my letters. It’s not your fault. It’s my fault, as the sender. Let me try again:
I don’t believe “gender” is malleable (what’s that from, the Latin for hammer?). It’s certainly not surgicable. I was just saying the word, properly used, refers to a collection of behaviours, socially agreed apon, which are streotypically masculine or feminine.
It’s perfectly okay for one Frenchman to greet another Frenchman with a kiss, so long as the onions don’t touch. Arab men walk down the street holding hands with their best male friends, like you and me might have done aged 5. (If it wasn’t for the whole Islam thing, these people would be adorable) But to the Australian man, lifelong friends should be referred to, lovingly, as “cunts”. These are societal expectations of gender, otherwise I would kiss you and offer you delicious snails. Or do you prefer oysters?
The question is, what is going on with the boys who like playing house and want dollies. Learnt from society? Or biology?
Children play with whatever’s around. It’s nbd if a boy plays house, I did to amuse my sisters many’s a time, and none of the other boys mocked me and escaped a battering.
It’s unfair really, NiV, I see strangers look at me with fear in their eyes sometimes because I’m a large man and often I don’t look happy. But inside, I have the gender of a short, black, millionaire American comedian who can afford a mini mountain of coke. The NHS has scheduled my Eddiemurphectomy for 2032.
Anyway, it’s a delight when your children become toddlers and learn how to play. They always surprise you, and you get a secondhand glimpse at the wonder of seeing a new world for the first time. Nothing wrong with a little girl who loves Spider-Man or a boy who loves Frozen. A boy can be a ballet dancer if he wants to. This is where “trans kid” charities such as Mermaids got it horribly, terribly wrong, no? Such people regularly use “gender” stereotypes to argue that little boys who like pink and Barbie should be scheduled for a cock chop at some point in the future. The CEO of Mermaids flew her son to Thailand to get castrated at age 16.
Until quite recently, Mermaids was largely funded by the NHS and other public sector “partner” organisation with your taxes.
“It’s unfair really, NiV, I see strangers look at me with fear in their eyes sometimes because I’m a large man and often I don’t look happy. But inside, I have the gender of a short, black, millionaire American comedian who can afford a mini mountain of coke. The NHS has scheduled my Eddiemurphectomy for 2032.”
I thought it was Richard Pryor that had a big appetite for coke (he was supposed to star in Blazing Saddles, but the studio refused because of drug use).
But there’s lots of men that like “girls stuff” and aren’t gay. If you watch Bob Fosse’s choreography from Sweet Charity, you’d be certain the bloke was a big whoopsy, but nope. Straight, married 3 times. One of these failed because he was banging so many women on the side. He wasn’t exactly Charles Bronson, but absolutely not gay.
Gene Kelly was a wonderful dancer and, I assume, got more pussy than a women’s toilet seat in Dublin airport.
My gran loved him. She also loved Boy George, tbf.
Female brain size is in the range 850-1600 grams, and male brain size is in the range 1000-1800 grams. There’s a big overlap. So some men do.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374445834_On_the_probability_distributions_of_brain_weights_in_men_and_women : figure 2.
But it’s not just about size, it’s about wiring.
Neither do I. But that’s not the question. The question is whether you believe that whatever genes are responsible for it developing in the male or female pattern can’t possibly develop the wrong one.
You can either claim that it’s not hardwired by genetics at all but learnt culturally (‘psychosocial), which would seem to imply it was as infinitely malleable as culture is, or you can claim that it is hardwired but can for some reason never get it wrong. The genes work 100% perfectly, every time. How/why do you think so?
[There are two stages of major brain/personality development, one in the womb when the dollies-vs-guns bit of gender is set, and the other at puberty, when sexual attraction is activated. Once the brain has fully developed, it’s not malleable, which is why attempts at psychiatric counselling don’t work. We can’t do brain surgery at the level needed to rewire it either. So I totally agree with you there.]
NiV, we’re deep into the comments so probably nobody will read this except you. But I hope you read it.
The question is whether you believe that whatever genes are responsible for it developing in the male or female pattern can’t possibly develop the wrong one.
I do believe that your genes are not “wrong,”. And I don’t mean to be unkind.
NiV, you were not created “wrong”. You also have a very masculine way of argumentation. Very detail oriented. But you didn’t come out of the womb wrong. Life just has a way of making us feel that way. If you feel happier in dresses, I’m delighted for you. I hope you’re the belle of the ball. I hope your dress is the swishiest, prettiest dress that has ever made made a viscount gasp. But it doesn’t mean we have to change our conception of biological sex.
You can either claim that it’s not hardwired by genetics at all but learnt culturally (‘psychosocial), which would seem to imply it was as infinitely malleable as culture is, or you can claim that it is hardwired but can for some reason never get it wrong. The genes work 100% perfectly, every time. How/why do you think so?
I think that performing masculinity all the time is hard and pitiless. The male human, like the male lion, must be inured to rejection, defeat and emotional famine. It’s a lonely existence sometimes. And I understand why some men want to escape to the perceived softer embrace of femininity. We smile at women. We make allowances. We put them on a pedestal – women are beautiful. They wear pretty dresses and have lovely personalities. As a mentalist myself, I completely understand the desire to escape oneself. That door into summer, we always subconsciously hope to find.
But we can’t be them. Only actual women, born as girls, can claim that honour. They go through so much to be our wives and the mothers of our children – can we not respect them for that? “Transgender” does not respect womanhood, it fetishises it.
Once the brain has fully developed, it’s not malleable, which is why attempts at psychiatric counselling don’t work.
For sure. I have little faith in “pray the gay away” schemes. And yeah, yeah, God is great. But I believe sexualitity is usually “set” by adulthood. Anthony Perkins tried going straight, and we got the wonderful Oz Perkins as a result. But I don’t think it stuck.
You may be labouring under a misapprehension. I’m not trans. I’ve never claimed to be.
I’m not sure if that’s an answer to the question. Do you mean that our recognisable male/female personalities (you was able to recognise my argumentative style, so I’m going to assume you believe they exist) happen because life just has a way of making us feel that way? Permanently?
Or have you just ignored the question, assumed a particular scenario, and told me that’s what I must be experiencing? It’s very nice of you to be so understanding, but it it seems like you are drawing some very detailed conclusions without any data.
Do you believe that something like “a very masculine way of argumentation” happens because that’s how society raises us to be, or because life makes us feel that way, or is it genetically hardwired? And if the latter, what makes you so certain that nobody can ever get hardwired the other way?
(Or for that matter, that society cannot raise us to argue in a feminine style, or that life can make us do so?)
In questions we *can* answer…. biology…
The whole bit about *care for offspring* is important, and the expression of that whole complex of behaviours has a bell curve…
Given the tendency of social monkeys to have only the prime male + eventual lieutenants actually breed, there’s a very clear and distinct social dynamic where the “lesser” males get more done by Being Nice/Good With Kids.
Because it benefits the survival of the kids, but *also* gives the males a chance to sneak in some Nookie because they are closer to the females, and “Mostly Harmless™”….
Since we inherited that, with some to spare, you *will* find boys who are “wired” to play with dolls and Play House, as opposed to trying to compete with the stronger/more agressive boys.
Or rather… compete in a different way… with a tad more subtlety..
Steve. Your talking about something only really exists amongst middle class intellectuals. Very few other people think like this. I’ve never known anyone secretly yearning for a real man to take charge with his fascist confidence and firm spankings for naughty behaviour. But that’s because I stay away from these sort of vermin.
Steve. Your talking about something only really exists amongst middle class intellectuals
Yes. Unfortunately, they run the place.
What you’re seeing now is an eruption of all the worst ideas from the most pretentious cunts in student unions circa 1997, released on a delayed timer, like the spectres in Ghostbusters 2 to wreak havoc on our dying civilisation.
These are the last days, before the Glorious Restoration. What comes next will be different.
The tranny thing is what you get after a political movement has achieved its goals and is now continuing into madness. It’s like Wile E Coyote continuing to run off the edge of the cliff before realising it.
Because of social changes that meant people were more tolerant of gays, politicians stayed on auto-pilot about trannies, not realising the problems with it. And what you’re seeing is a growing backlash against people who can’t define a woman, and the whole thing is crashing.
It’s like these race grifters who say that “racism is as bad as ever”. Oh, sure, President Obama and Black Panther being a huge movie. Blaxsploitation doesn’t exist now. No-one is making Shaft and Coffy for the black market. No-one is trying to find blue-eyed soul singers. MLK’s dream has been realised. Sure, there’s still the odd neo-nazi rally, but it’s about as small and pathetic as a trainspotters club. The Klan used to be 5m people in the 1930s. Now, it’s reckoned to be about 5,000.
Because of social changes that meant people were more tolerant of gays, politicians stayed on auto-pilot about trannies, not realising the problems with it.
Yarpsolutely. It took about 30 years of media softening to get people to accept gay marriage (without any manifesto commitments or referendum in support). They thought transgender would be a victory lap. But it turned into a horrific wreck of absent medical ethics instead. “Trans Bash Back” feels let down, but the Cass Report and its consequences have been the mildest and most graceful pirouette the establishment could have pulled off. This is a scandal almost as horrific as the Muslim Rape Gangs. Transgender ideology has an awful human toll.
One of these things is not like the others. Gays want to have gay sex with other gays, and not be jailed or discriminated against for their gayness. Transgenders want to force you to collude in their denial of both biological facts and semantic integrity itself. “Good as you” is a very different message from “trans women are women”. Welding the T to the LGB made sense for the trannies, to coast on the success of the gays for a while. But it turns out, gay men are just a lot more tolerable in practice. I don’t even care if they get a bj in the service station toilets. I do care if another man thinks he’s going to follow my daughter into the toilets.
Surely, didn’t they use gender just to avoid the word sex? With it’s latter day smutty connotations. Doesn’t seem to have had them much before recent times.
Recent (or fairly recent, sometime in the last forty-odd years) research has found that the average male brain differs from the average female brain which is why females are, on average, better at languages and some other skills. It has been suggested that it could explain why men appear to be better than women at mathematics and similar studies. The two bell curves for each aspect of the brain overlap (in theory it would be impossible for two bell curves each covering 3 billion people not to overlap) but there are clearly identifiable differences.
Whether or not “gender” is a psychosocial construction, it is a scientifically-proven fact that there are differences between the two sexes that are not limited to procreation or muscle development. To what extent this is due to evolution with males being the hunters and both sexes gathering is open to debate.
I suspect that marxist feminists did a big propaganda job to confuse people into believing that gender was what they said it was. Trying to confuse people about the meaning of sex was stage two in the process.
Yes. It was popular for a while to claim “trans women” have female coded brains somehow. But The Science shows they don’t, as if that wasn’t obvious by their stereotypically male interests and personalities.
Men and women differ right down to the subcellular level, so you wouldn’t be surprised to find differences in their brain (your hungriest organ), and we do.
Men’s brains are on average 10-15% bigger and heavier than women’s brains. Sex differences, as any parent kno, manifest in different behaviours from birth. Nobody needs to tell a male toddler the bin men are the greatest heroes in the galaxy, he knows it instinctively. You don’t need to teach girl toddlers to play house or want dollies. You certainly don’t need to teach them how to smile or cry to get what they want. Those crazed, attention seeking white feminists who were demanding the abolition of separate girls and boys toys are like people who claim their cat is vegan.
The Marxist have a tendency to take over liberal projects, gut them, and wear their skins, demanding respect.
The Feminists started off with some fairly reasonable and moderate demands about getting the vote and being allowed to own property and go out to work if they liked. When it got popular enough to be seen as a good thing, Marxists took the movement over and turned it into Class Struggle against the Patriarchy, and instigated a Revolution to reform society along more egalitarian lines. The ‘blank slate’ version of sex-linked behaviour was adopted because it allowed them to argue for indoctrination of males along more compliant lines.
Then in the 1980s evolutionary biology started examining the topic and found that sexual differences were at least partly innate. Hydroxytestosterone in the developing embryo in the womb triggered differences in brain wiring. Right-wing pundits like Matt Ridley spread the news.
Then when public sympathy in the 1990s moved in the general direction of being more liberal and tolerant and supportive of alternative sexual behaviour, the Marxists moved in again and took over, and turned it into Class Struggle against the Heteronormative Patriarchy. It went from a live-and-let-live tolerance where people could each get on with their lives in their own way into a new enforced orthodoxy and introduced a struggle sessions to enforce the new common agreement on classification of types.
They do this all the time. A liberal movement fights for freedom and tolerance, and as soon as it gains any momentum and starts to change society, bam, the Marxists move in, take over, and turn it into Class Struggle against the oppressors and a Revolution to enforce a new orthodoxy. The liberal movement that got gutted is discredited and destroyed by public revulsion for the new faces representing it, and the battle moves on. Same with black rights and environmentalism – they started off as a force for good, and then got trashed when the Marxists started using them to overthrow the whites and industrial civilisation respectively. So it goes.
But it’s the Marxists who are the real enemy, not the constantly-changing disguises they wear.
Property-owning women had votes in the nineteenth century (widows and single women could own property even before the Married Women’s Property Act). The Pankhursts were selling Brooklyn Bridge.
In local elections I think, but not in parliamentary .
Most men didn’t have votes in either.
People start a movement with sensible goals in mind. Lots of women wanted to work, to have equal rights to men, and once achieved, went and exercised them. Same with the blacks. They wanted to be treated fairly, then went off to work. Dr Patrick Moore just wanted the worst excesses of toxic waste, whaling, atomic bomb testing to be curtailed when he co-founded Greenpeace.
Once achieved, the movement doesn’t get wound up. Instead, nutters take them over and run with the momentum. Grifters will join to use the power or to make money.
At a certain point, they start to fall apart. You can see this with all of these. People who might have once been on the side of the movements start to cast a critical eye and switch sides. There are now so many people looking at things like temperature records and saying “yeah, this is bollocks” now.
But it’s the Marxists who are the real enemy, not the constantly-changing disguises they wear.
It’s like embracing Michael Bolton’s entire catalog. Many things are true, simultaneously. Universe is a big place.
Marxists should be strung up, but our enemies also include perverts who just want to piss next to your wife.
At last some sense.
“Whether or not “gender” is a psychosocial construction, it is a scientifically-proven fact that there are differences between the two sexes that are not limited to procreation or muscle development. To what extent this is due to evolution with males being the hunters and both sexes gathering is open to debate.”
One of my perspectives on this is that women need a support group more than men do, particularly because of hormone cycles. Women get off days, and need other women to step in.
Men are also better at accepting hierarchy. Hunting parties, armies need that. You need generals, captains and footsoldiers. The footsoldiers may want to rise up, but they also respect the abilities of those above that they consider to be superior and follow them into battle for a share of the spoils. Women don’t. They like group support but hate a woman being above them. It’s why almost no companies have large hierarchies of women.
Gender is actually a component of biology…..
Sex = physical biology of the ( usually) male/female duality.
Gender = the behaviour associated with male/female sex in species.
Yep. The behaviour is physical biology too.
Unless you think all the behavioural differences are due to society’s expectations, too?
Huh?!! Are you accusing me of being a sociologist or anthropologist? sheesh!! *shudder*
Most behaviour, especially basic behaviour, is baked in, which is then moderated/modified by experience and the environment.
Which *can* be “society”, but most species aren’t Social™ , y’know..
Yes, gender is “physical” biology..
It describes the firmware/software running on the “sex” hardware.
They’re different levels, with gender *following* the dictats of sex.
…… Most of the time… This *is* biology, and Mother Nature *will* Experiment, and try to fill *every* possibility.
Emergent System will Emerge and all that..
An abnormal personality can be genetic, traumatic, or roll of the dice. If it’s genetic then it’s biology. If it’s not it’s not.
You’re mistaken. Sadly so…
If it involves a living being , it’s Biology, either directly or derived.
The scope of my chosen science is *vast*….
Genetic = inheritance. Traumatic = environment. Roll of the Dice = Mutation, or Environment, , or sheer Bad Luck, that 1-2 % Experimental Trial Mother Nature ( the bitch ) does to keep the system rolling and…flexible…
It’s one of the reasons why there’s so many specialisms within the science.
And a solid reason why I chose to be a Generalist.. Because I may not be an Expert™ in any field, but it does give me the *chance* to Grok the entire complexity of it.
The biggest “problem” is that peeps , both Experts™ and Laymen™, never like the answers you arrive at.
Not that Mother Nature gives a damn, but it’s regularly quite funny… Especially the Orthodoxy…
How did linguists confuse sex & gender? Linguists use gender because in gendered languages, nouns can take forms similar to masculine or feminine. It’s nothing whatever to do with sex. Dogs & cats often take the masculine in the categorical. Tables take the feminine. So for some reason do roads.
Can’t say I understand why. Languages aren’t exactly rational.
“How did linguists confuse sex & gender?”
By labelling them “masculine” and “feminine”.
Genders in language are simply categories of words. If there are two categories, and males and females are in different categories, then linguists used this as a label for the category. But they could have used any other pair of concepts in different categories. And languages with multiple genders not differentiated by sex, or with more than two (masculine/feminine) or three (masculine/feminine/neuter) genders just make a nonsense of the distinction. Swahili has 16 noun classes. Shona has 20.
Something that really has nothing to do with sex got associated with sex. And in linguistics, there are often a lot more than just two genders.
As far as gender is concerned, nouns are labelled masculine or feminine because they take the M or F article or form of the adjective. It’s nothing about sex. In Spanish, when I go to the butchers I ask for pollo (M). Which is usually hen. Or I could use gallina (F) & get a yellow free range. When the g/f ‘s feeling frisky she may ask for polla (F). Dick.
It’s just the way the language evolved. Why do Brits use the feminine pronoun for ships?
The only other gender I’ve heard of is neuter. For some reason English lost its genders & is mostly neuter. Wasn’t always.
Gendered languages are basically illogical, how can an inanimate object have a gender? The fact that the various romance languages don’t have consistent genders seems to prove the point. OK so roads might be feminine in Spanish and French, but “la voiture” and “el coche” that drive on them??
No. It’d be why do languages have sex not gender? But they don’t unless they have to because of sex.
In Spanish, I ask for the bill: “La cuenta, por favor.” In Italian, it’s: “Il conto, per favore.”
Quite a lot of it is cultural association based on perceived male/female roles. Including notions of subservience.
So you drive *on* the road, which serves you… –> feminine..
In french you *enter* a car and use it. –> feminine.
In spanish the car *uses* the feminine road –> masculine.
There’s logic in the Madness… and it reflects the mindset of the people using the language..
I’ve tried & I can’t see any logic to it. For instance, two common words for the vag are coño & xoxo (pronounced chocho). Masculine. Whereas the male member gets feminine.
And what’s important is the people speak gendered languages don”t assign male or female characteristics to the words according to their gender. They can even do the opposite.
It would help learn the language if there was some logic. But there isn’t. You just have to remember
In Spanish the word for a port is puerto (M) whereas the word for a doorway in puerta (F). The Latin is portus (M) & porta (F) It’s basically the same concept – an entrance – and they’ve used gender to differentiate.
I constantly get por & para the wrong way round because being accustomed to French I see words ending in ‘e’ as feminine. French only has pour.
There isn’t any logic to it, probably not even cultural association in any reasoned way, the reasoning if any was lost long ago. What you have is just emergent evolution, it got that way somehow, because there are only so many ways to say something, particularly if you can’t be bothered with fine details of experts terminology and not bore everyone with long speeches.
Then the linguists come along, who for cultural reasons tend to think of latin as the datum and nexus by which to appraise and classify every language. Thus a list words in a language some of which appear to follow one set of rules some another, ignore the outliers and irregularities. You could label one set type 1 and the other type 2, or A and B, or give a long description of the rules which is hard to remember. But some common words of one type seem to be about ‘masculine’ things, and some ‘feminine’, so easier labels to sort-of remember.
And then there’s Japanese, which is not gramatically gendered at all and doesn’t distinguish between male and female adults – they only have the suffix -san (or -sama, if you’re being very polite) which get very confusing when Mr and Mrs Yamaguchi show up.
Instead they have four written languages and 100 different ways to count. Oh, and they still have plenty of sexism, rather giving the lie to gendered language being its cause.
It’s very amusing that nearly a hundred comments in the genders we are discussing are to do with linguistics, not that other thing.
Has declaring yourself trans become a get-out-of-jail-free card?
Hurt people and break things, and just tell the cops you are trans?
Where was Bash Back when Widdecombe died?
Do not ask – it is “sub judice”