|
Post by mrcoke on Dec 22, 2019 23:06:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Dec 22, 2019 23:07:15 GMT
Thornberry added that it was 'certain careers' that they shouldn't be allowed to wear them (nursing, childcare) and also it was important that juries were allowed to see peoples faces during court. I would argue, only just, that is slightly different to comparing someone to a letterbox or a bank robber for newspaper views. However they are similar in their approach, one is accepted and one is used to firm up an arguement depending on your viewpoint. Personally I think they should be banned. It was an observation, and in my view a correct one, they do look like letterboxes, And bank robbers do cover their faces, do they not ? And the big kicker is I think Boris was arguing for their right to wear them in that article ? Wasn’t he ? I’d have to go check but I think he was basically arguing in favour of religious expression but thinks they shouldn’t be allowed in certain settings IE a bank. Well I think we will disagree on them looking like a letterbox and comparing their image to that of a bank robber as despite my views against them wearing them I find it quite rude. I do believe you to be correct, they had been banned or attempted to be banned in Sweden or Denmark? However the memorable point so to speak is to what he referred them as. Unfortunately from my perspective his 'pub-talk' views are what makes him appealing and we can file this next to his views on: Watermelon Smiles Tank topped bum boys Comparing gay sex to beastiality Misleading the Queen Etc... I hoped for better for someone in the highest office in the land but he has just smacked in 364 seats so maybe it is me out of touch.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 23:07:54 GMT
I think you’re in a very small minority with that viewpoint, I imagine most women’s rights groups would disagree with you as well. They might well do. They'd be forgetting how many unisex changing rooms exist. Yes but they aren’t compulsory, you can choose not to use them, you’re talking about essentially allowing men free reign to use all women’s changing rooms and toilets, it’s a fucking insane and dangerous idea! No, I don’t want some 6ft4 bloke with a cock and balls taking a dump in the same toilet as my female relatives! You’ll get all kinds of perverts using them and claiming they're biologically female and have a right to use them. Since The whole trans thing is taking off, it might be better to have “Mens” “womens” and “other” changing rooms/toilets.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Dec 22, 2019 23:11:21 GMT
It was an observation, and in my view a correct one, they do look like letterboxes, And bank robbers do cover their faces, do they not ? And the big kicker is I think Boris was arguing for their right to wear them in that article ? Wasn’t he ? I’d have to go check but I think he was basically arguing in favour of religious expression but thinks they shouldn’t be allowed in certain settings IE a bank. Well I think we will disagree on them looking like a letterbox and comparing their image to that of a bank robber as despite my views against them wearing them I find it quite rude. I do believe you to be correct, they had been banned or attempted to be banned in Sweden or Denmark? However the memorable point so to speak is to what he referred them as. Unfortunately from my perspective his 'pub-talk' views are what makes him appealing and we can file this next to his views on: Watermelon Smiles Tank topped bum boys Comparing gay sex to beastiality Misleading the Queen Etc... I hoped for better for someone in the highest office in the land but he has just smacked in 364 seats so maybe it is me out of touch. Government and society would be better exploring the reasons why women are wearing it and the consequences of a girl who refuses to wear it. In doing so we would unearth some pretty distasteful stuff.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 22, 2019 23:11:45 GMT
I see the lovey dovey, wealthy London elite, happy clapper, socialist anoraks are out in force. Unbelievable that the prime minister is being blamed for an idiot fan at a football match. The world is going mad. What's worse is people are taking Gary Neville as some kind of credible political voice. And also ignoring the fact he mentioned Labour racism too, Gary was of course openly saying vote Labour last week some types of racism are obviously less important than other types to him.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Dec 22, 2019 23:12:34 GMT
I see the lovey dovey, wealthy London elite, happy clapper, socialist anoraks are out in force. Unbelievable that the prime minister is being blamed for an idiot fan at a football match. The world is going mad. What's worse is people are taking Gary Neville as some kind of credible political voice. And also ignoring the fact he mentioned Labour racism too, Gary was of course openly saying vote Labour last week some types of racism are obviously less important than other types to him. Indeed. He's a fucking idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 23:12:53 GMT
They might well do. They'd be forgetting how many unisex changing rooms exist. Yes but they aren’t compulsory, you can choose not to use them, you’re talking about essentially allowing men free reign to use all women’s changing rooms and toilets, it’s a fucking insane and dangerous idea! No, I don’t want some 6ft4 bloke with a cock and balls taking a dump in the same toilet as my female relatives! You’ll get all kinds of perverts using them and claiming they're biologically female and have a right to use them. Since The whole trans thing is taking off, it might be better to have “Mens” “womens” and “other” changing rooms/toilets. Yes, the only thing stopping rapists and perverts from assaulting women is the fact it has a sign on the door. I assume you make your female relatives dump in a different toilet to your male ones at home?
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 23:13:39 GMT
I see the lovey dovey, wealthy London elite, happy clapper, socialist anoraks are out in force. Unbelievable that the prime minister is being blamed for an idiot fan at a football match. The world is going mad. What's worse is people are taking Gary Neville as some kind of credible political voice. And also ignoring the fact he mentioned Labour racism too, Gary was of course openly saying vote Labour last week some types of racism are obviously less important than other types to him. I’m telling you, it boris derangement syndrome, these people genuinely think this is Johnson’s fault... it’s fucking insane!
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 23:20:51 GMT
Yes but they aren’t compulsory, you can choose not to use them, you’re talking about essentially allowing men free reign to use all women’s changing rooms and toilets, it’s a fucking insane and dangerous idea! No, I don’t want some 6ft4 bloke with a cock and balls taking a dump in the same toilet as my female relatives! You’ll get all kinds of perverts using them and claiming they're biologically female and have a right to use them. Since The whole trans thing is taking off, it might be better to have “Mens” “womens” and “other” changing rooms/toilets. Yes, the only thing stopping rapists and perverts from assaulting women is the fact it has a sign on the door. I assume you make your female relatives dump in a different toilet to your male ones at home? No, everyone uses the same shitter but not at the same time! There’s nobody peering over from the adjacent stall with a camera! I Imagine most women would be massively uncomfortable with this proposal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 23:24:17 GMT
Yes, the only thing stopping rapists and perverts from assaulting women is the fact it has a sign on the door. I assume you make your female relatives dump in a different toilet to your male ones at home? No, everyone uses the same shitter but not at the same time! There’s nobody peering over from the adjacent stall with a camera! I Imagine most women would be massively uncomfortable with this proposal. So lesbians shouldn't be allowed in women's changing rooms either, in case they're perverts? And what about kids, why are they allowed in adult changing rooms? What if paedophiles come in and peer over the stall with a camera? It's already mayhem!
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 23:37:48 GMT
No, everyone uses the same shitter but not at the same time! There’s nobody peering over from the adjacent stall with a camera! I Imagine most women would be massively uncomfortable with this proposal. So lesbians shouldn't be allowed in women's changing rooms either, in case they're perverts? And what about kids, why are they allowed in adult changing rooms? What if paedophiles come in and peer over the stall with a camera? It's already mayhem! No, lesbians should be allowed to use women’s toilets because they’re women. If a kid goes into an adult changing room they’re usually accompanied by an adult who will ensure they’re safety.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 23:38:53 GMT
So lesbians shouldn't be allowed in women's changing rooms either, in case they're perverts? And what about kids, why are they allowed in adult changing rooms? What if paedophiles come in and peer over the stall with a camera? It's already mayhem! No, lesbians should be allowed to use women’s toilets because they’re women. If a kid goes into an adult changing room they’re usually accompanied by an adult who will ensure they’re safety. So are trans women.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 22, 2019 23:42:55 GMT
No, lesbians should be allowed to use women’s toilets because they’re women. If a kid goes into an adult changing room they’re usually accompanied by an adult who will ensure they’re safety. So are trans women. Because they claim to be a woman doesn’t make it so, they should have a separate toilet block.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 23:51:44 GMT
Because they claim to be a woman doesn’t make it so, they should have a separate toilet block. So you don't believe trans people exist then, we'll never agree. Read the article I posted before.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 23, 2019 0:01:55 GMT
Because they claim to be a woman doesn’t make it so, they should have a separate toilet block. So you don't believe trans people exist then, we'll never agree. Read the article I posted before. No, they exist, but they can’t create their own reality, they’re free to call themselves whatever they want, dress how they like, but they can’t compel everyone else to go along with it. Allowing men who identify as women to use women’s toilets is a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2019 0:07:33 GMT
So you don't believe trans people exist then, we'll never agree. Read the article I posted before. No, they exist, but they can’t create their own reality, they’re free to call themselves whatever they want, dress how they like, but they can’t compel everyone else to go along with it. Allowing men who identify as women to use women’s toilets is a bad idea. No, they can. People are born and assigned the wrong gender at birth. This is scientific fact, whether you like it or not. 'Men who identify as women' = women.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Dec 23, 2019 0:12:50 GMT
This is twisted, muddled, self-evidently nonsensical, anti-scientific propaganda. Biological sex, for 99.9% of humans, is absolutely binary and absolutely static. It is observed at birth and continues its manifestation until death. We know these things. We’ve known them for centuries. The fact that Homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species and divides into males and females is not going to be changed by some bonkers postmodern ideology that happens to be temporarily fashionable.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 23, 2019 0:13:49 GMT
No, they exist, but they can’t create their own reality, they’re free to call themselves whatever they want, dress how they like, but they can’t compel everyone else to go along with it. Allowing men who identify as women to use women’s toilets is a bad idea. No, they can. People are born and assigned the wrong gender at birth. This is scientific fact, whether you like it or not. 'Men who identify as women' = women. No, they’re correctly assigned their gender because they have either a cock and balls or a vagina.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Dec 23, 2019 0:15:55 GMT
They’re not “assigned a gender”. Their sex is *observed*.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 23, 2019 0:24:52 GMT
No, they exist, but they can’t create their own reality, they’re free to call themselves whatever they want, dress how they like, but they can’t compel everyone else to go along with it. Allowing men who identify as women to use women’s toilets is a bad idea. No, they can. People are born and assigned the wrong gender at birth. This is scientific fact, whether you like it or not. 'Men who identify as women' = women. So nobody should be assigned a gender at birth? Do we have to wait till they’re old enough to speak and tell us which gender they are before calling them he or she ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2019 0:26:30 GMT
This is twisted, muddled, self-evidently nonsensical, anti-scientific propaganda. Biological sex, for 99.9% of humans, is absolutely binary and absolutely static. It is observed at birth and continues its manifestation until death. We know these things. We’ve known them for centuries. The fact that Homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species and divides into males and females is not going to be changed by some bonkers postmodern ideology that happens to be temporarily fashionable. As a scientist, that is utter rubbish. Because most people are (very) loosely defined by two quantities does not mean that sex is binary. Low estimates put 1-2% of the population is intersex, meaning they have variations in sexual characteristics that are not specifically male or female. Including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals. This doesn't include the fact that most people never question the sex they were told they are at birth, and the size of the spectrum that exists between male, intersex and female. Around 0.5% of the EU population is trans, for reference.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Dec 23, 2019 0:26:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2019 0:27:03 GMT
No, they can. People are born and assigned the wrong gender at birth. This is scientific fact, whether you like it or not. 'Men who identify as women' = women. No, they’re correctly assigned their gender because they have either a cock and balls or a vagina. You are well aware how scientifically inaccurate that is.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2019 0:29:05 GMT
No, they can. People are born and assigned the wrong gender at birth. This is scientific fact, whether you like it or not. 'Men who identify as women' = women. So nobody should be assigned a gender at birth? Do we have to wait till they’re old enough to speak and tell us which gender they are before calling them he or she ? I'm not saying that. But it should be made acceptable for them to change if or when they decide to do so.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 23, 2019 0:29:32 GMT
So there’s is no gender pay gap then ?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Dec 23, 2019 0:36:10 GMT
This is twisted, muddled, self-evidently nonsensical, anti-scientific propaganda. Biological sex, for 99.9% of humans, is absolutely binary and absolutely static. It is observed at birth and continues its manifestation until death. We know these things. We’ve known them for centuries. The fact that Homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species and divides into males and females is not going to be changed by some bonkers postmodern ideology that happens to be temporarily fashionable. As a scientist, that is utter rubbish. Because most people are (very) loosely defined by two quantities does not mean that sex is binary. Low estimates put 1-2% of the population is intersex, meaning they have variations in sexual characteristics that are not specifically male or female. Including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals. This doesn't include the fact that most people never question the sex they were told they are at birth, and the size of the spectrum that exists between male, intersex and female. Around 0.5% of the EU population is trans, for reference. Where do you get the 1%-2% figure from? "Therefore it is very rare that the sex of a child is recorded as indeterminate or intersex within birth registrations so no figures are published on this due to the small numbers." ONS, Gov.uk Number of babies with intersex traits
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2019 0:37:02 GMT
No, they can. People are born and assigned the wrong gender at birth. This is scientific fact, whether you like it or not. 'Men who identify as women' = women. No, they’re correctly assigned their gender because they have either a cock and balls or a vagina. Let's say I had a machine, and you went in. It kept everything about you exactly the same but changed all your chromosomes to XX instead of XY. Would you be female?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2019 0:38:38 GMT
As a scientist, that is utter rubbish. Because most people are (very) loosely defined by two quantities does not mean that sex is binary. Low estimates put 1-2% of the population is intersex, meaning they have variations in sexual characteristics that are not specifically male or female. Including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals. This doesn't include the fact that most people never question the sex they were told they are at birth, and the size of the spectrum that exists between male, intersex and female. Around 0.5% of the EU population is trans, for reference. Where do you get the 1%-2% figure from? "Therefore it is very rare that the sex of a child is recorded as indeterminate or intersex within birth registrations so no figures are published on this due to the small numbers." ONS, Gov.uk Number of babies with intersex traits Blackless, Melanie; Charuvastra, Anthony; Derryck, Amanda; Fausto-Sterling, Anne; Lauzanne, Karl; Lee, Ellen (March 2000). "How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis". American Journal of Human Biology. 12 (2): 151–166. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(200003/04)12:2<151::AID-AJHB1>3.0.CO;2-F. ISSN 1520-6300. PMID 11534012.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Dec 23, 2019 0:47:38 GMT
This is twisted, muddled, self-evidently nonsensical, anti-scientific propaganda. Biological sex, for 99.9% of humans, is absolutely binary and absolutely static. It is observed at birth and continues its manifestation until death. We know these things. We’ve known them for centuries. The fact that Homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species and divides into males and females is not going to be changed by some bonkers postmodern ideology that happens to be temporarily fashionable. As a scientist, that is utter rubbish. Because most people are (very) loosely defined by two quantities does not mean that sex is binary. Low estimates put 1-2% of the population is intersex, meaning they have variations in sexual characteristics that are not specifically male or female. Including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals. This doesn't include the fact that most people never question the sex they were told they are at birth, and the size of the spectrum that exists between male, intersex and female. Around 0.5% of the EU population is trans, for reference. What does trans have to do with it? They are people who were born in the “wrong” body aren’t they? Which literally confirms the idea of biological sex rather than rejects it. And then even if we take your figure of 1-2% intersex, which I’m fairly certain is a wild exaggeration but can’t be arsed to do the digging right now, we’re still talking about a tiny fraction of the population. How does that back up the idea that biological sex in Homo sapiens is neither “binary nor static”? Nobody in the real world buys this bunk.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Dec 23, 2019 1:15:34 GMT
Where do you get the 1%-2% figure from? "Therefore it is very rare that the sex of a child is recorded as indeterminate or intersex within birth registrations so no figures are published on this due to the small numbers." ONS, Gov.uk Number of babies with intersex traits Blackless, Melanie; Charuvastra, Anthony; Derryck, Amanda; Fausto-Sterling, Anne; Lauzanne, Karl; Lee, Ellen (March 2000). "How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis". American Journal of Human Biology. 12 (2): 151–166. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(200003/04)12:2<151::AID-AJHB1>3.0.CO;2-F. ISSN 1520-6300. PMID 11534012. "We conclude that this frequency may be as high as 2% of live births. The frequency of individuals receiving "corrective" genital surgery, however, probably runs between 1 and 2 per 1,000 live births." Maybe as high as 2%. So your "low" estimate is actually the top estimate. Corrective surgery? What are they 'correcting' is intersex is a 'natural' gender? There have always been births with deformities of sexual organs and hermaphrodites and a study from 19 years ago with "maybe's" and "estimates" doesn't actually sway me.
|
|