The costs of trans visibility

Who cares?

You have me stumped, a hole in one. Why is it so important that the definition of women was broadened to mean more than the female sex?

batting a thousand

You didn't answer the question. You edited in a question to deflect, but anyone with a respectable iq can see how pathetic this is

Someone

Please

Any trans activist that's been lecturing everyone, please step in and answer the most basic question. This is humiliating for your comrades

lol at the matt walsh fanboy trying to play the part as well

Can we just skip to the part where you oversimplify the definition?

as I predicted from the start, you have not and still won't answer the most basic question

In this post here you advertise that you have had time to think about it and question your own beliefs. Somehow we've still arrived at the point where I've asked you 4 times to tell me what a woman is and you can't, while pretending this isn't a total embarrassment

Lets stay here while you guys line up one after another and fail to tell everyone what a woman is. The fact you haven't realized how absolutely foolish this position is and then skipped ahead and thought about the implications is quite the maneuver

You’re obviously a previously banned account. I’ve done the inept “what is a woman” Matt Walsh wannabe dance many times before, so have we already had this exact conversation before?

You didn't answer the question

I just told you gender ideology is made up nonsense. I told you i could demonstrate this with a handful of questions. On question 1 you can't tell me what a woman is. Instead of stepping back and questioning your position you're doubling down? How is my position that gender ideology is made up nonsense doing here? I'd say you're helping prove my point and far too stubborn to actually snap out of it

Is gender innate?

Then why are people falling over themselves to discredit The Cass Report?

For example:

and in the UK, Stonewall released a deliberately misleading statement intended to discredit Dr Cass and her report, which was then repeated in parliament and later withdrawn when it was pointed out she has mislead the house.

and you were doing so well for a few days, you just couldn't keep your inner douchebag bottled up for too long could you?

Are you talking about me or your Twitter feed? Like nowhere in my point did I say anti-trans activists or their opponents made zero factual claims and couldn’t be wrong about those factual claims, I point out the errors from anti-trans ideologues and zealots all the time ITT. It is just this isn’t in my view the central tension in the debate.

Wan a hole is finally getting some attention but can't get anyone to play his reindeer games with him. I think he will do some more Matt Walsh today but may through in some Jordan Peterson at the end .

Women are a faith-based cult. I got Uke to admit that once in one of the locked threads.

When I said I'd hold his hand through this I still gave him too much credit and let him down.

Is woman a gender? Yes of course. One of the most popular and a personal favorite

Now let's ask the obvious. What is a man?

Ok we've covered 99% of humans and still have no definition of either

Could someone list and describe/define 2 additional "genders"?

None of the transgender people I know are like this, but don't let that keep you from making wild assumptions about people you don't know much about.

Matt Walsh (which we don't care about) came up with the idea i think after this

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

If it isn't a gotcha question, that puts the tragicomical insanity of radical trans activism naked for all to see, why did a nominee for scotus fumble it's way to a non-answer to that very question?

Why is it so hard to answer it in a way the vast majority of the people would agree is obviously true, as it would have been for everyone from the left to the right 40 years ago?

because you cannot answer the question in a normal way without spitting upon gender theory OR upon normal people who don't care about gender theory.

If you answer biologically like normal people would, you deny trans women are women. If you answer "a woman is any person who identifies as a woman" normal people call the ambulance

no we don't? you do maybe, but we don't? the fact that gender is something different from biological sex and exists semi-independently from it is something a lot of us disagree with?

Why would be not be happy to extend the label man to a woman that feels he is a man... well for example so we don't have to say that men can be pregnant?

We use man and woman to identify who can carry a child and who can't which is a kinda relevant thing for human societies. We also accept women are weaker, less expendable, and deserving help more than men are, and legislate in that direction.

So extending the label of woman to men bypasses that attempt to help people who need that help as well.

The idea that we can "solve" women labor force participation rates if a lot of working men just self identify as women is... genuinely atrocious.

Lol. A short while ago I put Lucium on my ignore list (due to being annoying in the Canada thread). When you do this you still see that he HAS posted, but you have to click "view post" to see it. So I noticed that his posts kept showing up right after mine. Testing the theory, I just clicked the "view post" button, and yup the dude is still replying to me despite knowing he is on my ignore list.

What a great confirmation that the ignore list is precisely where he belongs. Anyways, now if people wonder why I'm not responding to his posts, now you know.

Yes because since very early on it has always been clear you aren't someone to engage with in order to have a useful debate about anything. You are like the stereotype technocratic moderate economic-wise, radical cultural leftist (maybe for show? because your marxist coscience requires you to be radical at least in something, and given you don't want to give up economic wellbeing, you jump into culture, many such cases) , who thinks he is fundamentally morally superior to everyone else.

Which is fine for me because your takes on stuff are very clearly the take of your tribe so i can comment on them for other people to read.

I think the best question here is... why do you care?

How does this affect your life on a personal level if women want to identify as men and vice versa?

It's interesting that when conservatives groups throughout the world were first trying to bring up trans rights issues as a wedge issue for their base, it just didn't poll very well on the whole and it didn't move the needle. They were really actively searching for a new bigoted position, because gay rights was slowly being accepted in conservative circles, so it just wasn't a very effective base wedge issue anymore.

When they applied the issue to sports, and this idea of "fairness in sports", that's when the issue started polling well and taking off. They found the justified bigoted position, and now it's somehow a big issue, even though it really doesn't affect anyone's life very much. Some people in your community have gender dysphoria... ok... so what?

As a taxpayer, if i have to pay for any care of something that science today doesn't consider illness, it affects me personally, especially in countries like Italy were care is rationed because of socialized public care.

For the rest as a man adult trans activism doesn't touch me too much, unless they want to legally force me to address people in the way they feel is proper, or they put quotas anywhere in favor of trans people (like it happened in my city) , or they legally mandate me to hire them even if i dislike the idea of being around a crossdresser (which i could previously discriminate against) and so on.

So with absolutely no taxpayer money ever spent toward trans-ness in any form, no legal mandate, no protected status from discrimination, it wouldn't bother me for adults, directly.

But i care about women rights, and trans activism destroys that. If my partner, my mother, my daughter or my sister or any of my actually biological female friends end up in jail (and in italy there is no bail, so it's common to end up in jail as innocent), i want to be sure no-one with a penis can be in a cell with them when the light goes off for example. Maybe you have never thought about it in this way, but for me it's so obvious it's painful to need to state it.

I also think about rape shelters, where victimized women should have a right not to be around, again, actual penises. And so on.

Then there is all the part about minors which i think i explained well enough, but the tldr is that protecting even a single actually non-trans minor from sterilization is enough for me.

The usual suspects are trying that, but they aren't getting very far. Cass has changed the landscape. Labour's had to accept it (despite a previous self-ID policy), the Tories have had to accept it (despite a previous self-ID policy), the Lib Dems are reduced to incoherent mumbling and so are Stonewall. Even Labour backbencher Dawn Butler, who in 2020 tried to claim on live TV that 'children are born without sex', has had to apologise for misleading the House of Commons by quoting a Stonewall attempt to rebut Cass which turned out to be a lie.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04...

And the Scottish government at first said they were going to ignore Cass because England doesn't count, but now Sandyford, Scotland's gender clinic, equivalent to the now-closed Tavistock GIDS in London, has 'paused' the use of puberty blockers. (Fear of litigation is a hell of a kick up the arse.)

Even Private Eye, which for a long time, despite many promptings, has ignored what may be the largest medical scandal of recent times (because, as I have reason to know in another connection, Ian Hislop, though a decent and astute person, likes to 'have the audience on his side' and does not like to stick his neck out), is now publishing medical commentary in support of Cass and against the Orwellian thought-police stuff that the genderists have been getting up to.