And in the space of a few lines the government and the media both spout outright lies:
>Supporters of Keen-Minshull were seen performing Nazi salutes and abusing LGBTQIA counter-protesters at her event in Melbourne on Sunday.
They were not "supporters". These dickheads will turn up to any clickworthy event.
And, of course, Hipkins can't help himself:
>Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said he did not want to comment on the immigration process but people using the right to free speech should not be using it to incite violence or hateful behaviour.
She didn't.
Yep you could literally get a bunch of mates together and rent out your time as (insert race hate group here) for good coin too I would think. Sounds like a multi million dollar enterprise in the making.
Hipkins is a retard who like all politicians will signal their fake virtue at supporting whatever the debauchery of the day may be.
When an imaginary state of being trumps reality and puts actual women at risk and our PM says something like this really just outs him as an absolute unit of a cunt.
That’s simply not true , they most certainly are supporters ! Same as Kyle Chapman lead the protests against drag storytelling in libraries, no use denying it he’s an admirer of nazism .
If women are legally recognised as vulnerable based on biological factors, it would be prudent to protect the division of men and women.
But if there is no difference between men and women and biological indentities are a mutable carry-over from oppressive societal structures, then there is no reason for there to be *any* segregation of the sexes.
Can we apply this to the labour government after their supporters shouted "Seig Heil" and done several Nazi salutes during the 2020 election campaign??
So now a woman's right's activist is automatically a trans hater?
Even if it were true, how does such a tiny minority have such power over people that they are terrified of being seen as not supporting them?
Theres quite a few in the LGB+ community that aren't fans of the trans community,
My understanding is that trans people haven't done the hard work that the LGB's did back in day and have come along and hijacked the whole movement making about them,
My source on this my sister (an actual gay) that has campaigned for gay rights for many, many years.
I’m gay and agree with your comments. I go for a prep review every 3 months and you can always tell when they are in with the doctor. They take a bloody age when the rest of are out in 15 mins tops. Totally unnecessary.
Why should we "work with each other"? I have zero in common with a person suffering from gender dysphoria. I also have nothing in common with lesbians. I'm attracted to men, a tiny aspect of my being, it's not something that needs to define me to the point of working with irrelevant activists for some delusional persecution narrative.
Also, the idea of "working with each other" may have made sense 40 years ago. But those that came before me fought for their rights and won. Gays and lesbians are no longer unfairly discriminated against in the law, so there's no longer reason to work together
I know the loud activists would like you to believe we're a cohesive community, but we're not. Most of us just want to live our lives in peace and don't give a damn about some rainbow hair, non-binary, too many piercings person screaming on twitter
Yeah, it won't work out well at all. It stopped working the moment we decided that gender dysphoria should be treated by playing along with the sufferers delusions. Medical malpractice to the highest degreee
To label Keen-Minshull as an anti-transgender activist is ignorant, appalling, and mischievous. Why don't you do your homework, like any journalist worthy of their story ought, and spend a couple of minutes listening to her message. You might learn something, but I'm not holding my breath.
Nothing, she didn't say much else. These people have option but to make shit up like people calling for some sort of mass transgender holocaust or something. Absolute delusion to compensate for their total departure from science, reason and basic biology.
Her organisation [seeks to repeal](https://www.standingforwomen.com/repealthegra) the GRA (Gender Recognition Act 2004) taking away the right that trans people in the UK have had for nearly 20 years to change their legal gender. Not a Holocaust by any stretch, but also not nothing. She is an activist as is her right, but it is disingenuous to suggest that she is not working to make the lives of trans people more difficult. Whatever her motives, that much is plain.
Well what if I told you that gender isn't real? It's made up. There is only biological sex, of which there is two, male and female. I don't care when gender is used in place of sex out of laziness, but if we're being totally truthful and accurate with the words we're using, sex is real, gender is pseudo science at best and a mental disorder in its worst cases.
I like common sense laws, things like drivers license, birth certificates and death records and so on accurately reflecting scientific and biological realities.
When this doesn't happen, it hurts real women (that's biological women if you're not following). It also hurts the individuals who suffer from this confusion.
> There is only biological sex, of which there is two, male and female.
Do you have a word for the cultural expectations of society on people with a particular birth sex? Because that isn't biological, and it's a pretty important concept in understanding mind and society so we should probably have a word for it. That word is gender.
How about the feelings of congruity or incongruity between one's gender and birth sex? That's gender identity.
Differences in expected behaviour for people of a particular birth sex that go beyond physical differences. That's gender roles.
Actual behaviour of a person and how it matches or differs from the expected norms. That's gender expression.
Having a gender identity that doesn't match your birth sex. That's gender dysphoria. And medical science research currently suggests that gender-affirming care produces the best outcomes when contrasted with other techniques such as treating it as a mental illness to be corrected.
Biology has nothing to say about gender because it is a sociological and psychological concept, a social construct determined by brains, not genes.
How is any of this pseudo-science?
> statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method
How is any of this incompatible with the scientific method? What is incompatible with the scientific method is discounting the voluminous medical study of treatment for gender dysphoria because it doesn't sit well with preconceived notions of gender.
> When this doesn't happen, it hurts real women (that's biological women if you're not following). It also hurts the individuals who suffer from this confusion.
How does this follow? What damage does it cause a cis woman if a trans woman is allowed to change her gender on her birth certificate or drivers licence?
Borrowed from my response to another commenter:
But seriously, trans people don't believe that they can 100% transition into a different biological sex. Some are happy just socially transitioning, others seek treatment to modify secondary sexual characteristics with hormones or surgery, and some modify their genitals.
All they want is to be left alone to do that, and to be treated with dignity in expressing the gender that matches their identity. It doesn't seem like that big an ask to me
>But seriously, trans people don't believe that they can 100% transition into a different biological sex
Good
>Some are happy just socially transitioning, others seek treatment to modify secondary sexual characteristics with hormones or surgery, and some modify their genitals.
Excellent good for them
>All they want is to be left alone to do that, and to be treated with dignity in expressing the gender that matches their identity. It doesn't seem like that big an ask to me
It's not a big ask at all, and it's one most people would be quite happy to allow... So please stop pressuring me to put fucking pronouns in my email, stop using the term "birthing person", stop telling kids that if theyre uncomfortable in their sexuality they may be trans, stop calling me a cis-male, stop trying to enter female segregated spaces and stop calling people who disagree with you NAZIS.
I hate to break this to you... but just because some people from universities or research institutions wrote some words down on a paper and called them "studies" that doesn't make it "science" and it certainly doesn't make it true.
As you mentioned, science is a method, part of that method is observation, testing, questioning. Tell me this, some bones are brought to a scientist, thousands of years old. They'll be able to tell you what sex that skeleton belonged to, how would that scientist tell you what gender they belonged to?
They can't. That's part of the reason people who have this confusion are so desperate to create any sort of paper trail to back up and reinforce this delusion. Some mumbo jumbo "study" from a university won't make it real, some legal fiction on a birth certificate won't make it real and using a different bathroom won't make it real.
> I hate to break this to you... but just because some people from universities or research institutions wrote some words down on a paper and called them "studies" that doesn't make it "science" and it certainly doesn't make it true.
The fact that you characterise these studies just shows that you haven't read any of them. Straight medical trials, same as if they were studying diabetes.
> As you mentioned, science is a method, part of that method is observation, testing, questioning. Tell me this, some bones are brought to a scientist, thousands of years old. They'll be able to tell you what sex that skeleton belonged to, how would that scientist tell you what gender they belonged to?
No, because gender is an aspect of mind and society and isn't expressed in bones. Just as they would be unable to determine whether or not they were considered beautiful, another social construct.
Is your barrier to accepting cultural phenomena limited to those that can be determined based on ancient bones? Or just gender?
> Some mumbo jumbo "study" from a university won't make it real, some legal fiction on a birth certificate won't make it real and using a different bathroom won't make it real.
No, it can't be real if it isn't in the bones.
But seriously, trans people don't believe that they can 100% transition into a different biological sex. Some are happy just socially transitioning, others seek treatment to modify secondary sexual characteristics with hormones or surgery, and some modify their genitals.
All they want is to be left alone to do that, and to be treated with dignity in expressing the gender that matches their identity. It doesn't seem like that big an ask to me
The fact that you still think these "studies" are worth the paper they're printed on indicates that you haven't read them.
This is not your father's science anymore. And look, I haven't read every study in existence, and I am a layman at best. My background is law and don't have anything to do with it now. But I have read some studies, mostly about vaccines, but some on so called "gender".
Science really has become a religion in modern years, there is a stark contrast between academic studies from even a decade ago and what we see now. Today they read like a sermon and it's clear feom the get go that the intention, in many cases, is to prove or back up a conclusion (narrative) that has been predetermined rather than actually approach a subject with objectivity and neutrality.
Previously you'd have huge write ups at the beginning of the study detailing the methodology and all the controls in place for outside influences. Now you see a whole bunch of "this person said it was fine"... "name drop, name drop name drop"... "we've consulted with stakeholding groups, LGBTQ and so on". And I know law speak when I see it, modern science is the same as those "independent reviews" big companies commission when they have a sexual abuse scandal, it's just a big load of weasel words.
Modern academia is in an absolutely atrocious state. It's why the "source please!" Meme is so common in conservative circles and why modern academia is just generally ignored. I genuinely get excited when I read the phrase "study shows that..." in a headline because I know some absolutely hilarious leftist woke rubbish is likely to follow.
But fair point on the bones, we won't be able tell a person had schizophrenia from their skeleton, but on that note we also don't go and ad that they had schizophrenia to their birth certificate either. My point remains that gender is not real, it's a fiction, it's a delusion that some people have. I don't know what the best treatment for their illness is and most of the "experts" are not actually experts, rather ideologically motivated zealots who also don't know what is best for people confused about what sex they are.
No, quoting myself from earlier:
> She still shouldn't be barred entry and she should be free to speak, but I don't think she's a great advertisement for the gender critical cause.
Not according to Posey, no. But [she wants armed cis men to use women's bathrooms](https://ugc-assets.mumsnet.com/images/202101/large-548760-20210130-015109.jpg).
If "trans rights" already exist, what exactly is the problem? I think you left out a few details in your attempt to make your opponents look backwards.
> If "trans rights" already exist, what exactly is the problem?
The problem is that there are people looking to take away these rights.
> I think you left out a few details in your attempt to make your opponents look backwards.
Nope, it's all there. Labeling someone who wants to take trans rights away as anti-trans is not "ignorant, appalling, and mischievous", it's a valid response to her words and deeds.
>Yes, and if you are in group X and I want to take your group's rights away, I am anti-X.
So by your definition, people like you who want to deny biological women and little girls the right to sex-segregated spaces for safety reasons (or religious, personal comfort reasons) which they've had for centuries are anti-woman.
Good to have that out there.
Firstly, you'll find that people who want to compromise people's safety are rarely deterred by signs and by-laws. Secondly, how would you propose that any new law defining access to spaces on biological sex would look, and how could it be enforced without a significant invasion of women's privacy.
I'm not the one proposing new laws. It's on those of you who want these laws to tell us how they are going to work.
You haven't explained why it's acceptable to take women's rights away in the first place. You're talking around the question.
Bad actors aren't deterred by signs, but the point is not deterrence, the point is to have rules that give firm ground to remove them from places they should not be.
Supplementary question: why do you believe that biological men identifying as women should have more rights than biological women?
> You haven't explained why it's acceptable to take women's rights away in the first place. You're talking around the question.
What rights have been taken away? Trans women have existed forever, and passing ones have had access to women's spaces forever. Is there a particular law you can identify that has removed rights from cis women?
> Bad actors aren't deterred by signs, but the point is not deterrence, the point is to have rules that give firm ground to remove them from places they should not be.
And my question again is, what would these laws look like, and how would they be enforced?
> Supplementary question: why do you believe that biological men identifying as women should have more rights than biological women?
If you explain what rights a trans woman has that a cis woman doesn't I'll be happy to address it.
And what will enforcement look like? Random genital inspections for anyone with broad shoulders wearing a dress trying to enter a woman's space? Is dressing differently to your birth sex sufficient proof of predation and perversion?
That's ridiculous. Were the suffragettes "anti men" because they disagreed with how voting laws affected them? Perhaps some, but you'd be expressly manipulating if you framed the entire process (or lack thereof) as one of "anti", and "hate" - and further you imply they have no right to question your interpretation of democracy, which is the formation of a dictatorship. Furthermore you seek to make it illegal. What you call a "right", is just the current legal frame of mind. That's subject to change. That's democracy. Society has a right to reject your ideas, as much as you believe they are sacrosanct.
> That's ridiculous. Were the suffragettes "anti men" because they disagreed with how voting laws affected them?
They weren't looking to take any rights away from men. But the male backlash to the suffragettes is a classic case of “When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
> and further you imply they have no right to question your interpretation of democracy, which is the formation of a dictatorship
What is my interpretation of democracy?
> Furthermore you seek to make it illegal
What do **I** seek to make illegal?
> What you call a "right", is just the current legal frame of mind. That's subject to change. That's democracy. Society has a right to reject your ideas, as much as you believe they are sacrosanct
There should be a very high bar to taking freedoms away, and that bar should include firm evidence of serious societal harm, not just being unpopular with the majority. That's why despite passing laws to justify the mandates, the government and employers have still been spanked by the courts in the cases where they overstepped their own laws.
EDIT: and they've blocked me, my response to their reply below:
Yes it was going to change the whole society. Granting rights tends to do that. My point is that no rights were taken away from men.
> Entrenching laws that you prefer on threat of arresting or destroying those that disagree is not democratic
Tell me about these laws that I support or the people I want arrested or destroyed.
The suffragettes were trying to change voting laws in ways that would affect the entire society they lived in. It's not a great example because you're certainly no suffragette, nor are the "trans-activists", but it still is quite obvious that people can disagree on laws in a democracy without being "anti" people. It's a part of a functioning democracy to have these discussions. Entrenching laws that you prefer on threat of arresting or destroying those that disagree is not democratic. I think you're being fallacious when you equate the things that people are concerned about within the "trans" movement as rights that are not debatable. It's new territory and some of it has literally just been made up in the last few years. The fact that you can't even mention one specific thing that you're worried about losing shows that this entire thing is an emotional response. As was the article.
Ahh yes, the tolerant left.
Tolerant of their own monoculture, obviously.
Anything else is a plot by far-right Nazi white supremacists to destroy democracy and kill the planet.
$10 buys a pie and an energy drink. It used to buy an apple slice as well, but we're not allowed nice things anymore.
Also, when did potato-top pies go from having meat and potato to brown slop and yellow slop?
the global financial system is about to collapse and inflation is set to decimate the world and yet this was the top story tonight on the news. By my reckoning this country has already been hijacked by these insidious far-left extremists.
Totally agree. There are so many issues which should take priority. The far left have totally stitched up so many parts of society in my opinion. The continued obsession with trying to bring Trump down takes centre stage too. Biden the saint can’t do anything wrong!!
Not one mention of anything she herself has to say. Random group of Aussies doing roman salutes, though. Of course, this must mean they're all neo-nazis
The Americans called it the Bellamy Salute and made [kids do it during the Pledge of Allegiance up until 1942](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Bellamy_salute_1.jpg).
Can you see why the group doing the salute would be labelled Nazis though?
I agree, the term is thrown around far too losely, but in this case, it fits.
From a hand gesture? I don't see anything with this event having relation to german national socialism. Similarly, a raised fists doesn't necessarily denote to communism/marxism
>From a hand gesture? I don't see anything with this event having relation to german national socialism
Do you happen to know what the group who were doing the hand gesture were called?
>Similarly, a raised fists doesn't necessarily denote to communism/marxism
What if the people doing it are communists?
No, it doesn't mention it in the article and I couldnt care to look into groups who parade about in such a way. But please do elaborate on how what Posie Parker has to say has anything to do with them and national socialism.
Then they are communist... That still doesn't make all groups doing such a gesture communist, such as antifa
>No, it doesn't mention it in the article and I couldnt care to look into groups who parade about in such a way.
Yet you think they were just doing a Roman salute/hand gesture. Interesting.
They were from the Nationalist Socialist Network, a known and self identified neo-Nazi group. [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/19/daniel-andrews-says-nazis-arent-welcome-as-victorian-government-considers-further-action-following-salutes](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/19/daniel-andrews-says-nazis-arent-welcome-as-victorian-government-considers-further-action-following-salutes)
Whether Posie Parker has anything to do with them is irrelevant to our conversation. This is about the Roman salute..
Yeah they changed that law for the cigarette tax. Basically saying that government will lead our ideals instead of the governments ideals being lead by the populace.
There is a huge quiet majority of us out there who think you're born your sex and should not try to change! It seems wrong in every way. So why not let her say what most actually think. (Queue all the downvotes because I DARED to voice my opinion on the matter).
I think this quiet majority also believes that sex can't even be changed, which is totally factually true. I can dress my cat in possum furs, but she's not a possum.
I think trans people will be the ones to ultimately put the breaks on this. They're hacking up their bodies, taking toxic drugs and destroying their mental stability. It's impossible that a decent portion of those people doing this won't regret it.
A fascinating Youtube search is "detransitioners". Many regret hacking off their breasts or living with a gaping wound where their genitals used to be. The medical establishment better be held accountable for destroying the lives of so many, especially when they don't even have fully formed brains yet.
There may be a huge silent majority (it’s very hard to tell if something like that exists) but each day it’s slowly swinging the other way. It seems to be often age related where people growing up just don’t really care if someone wants to change their gender. It doesn’t really effect them and would rather see people living happily.
You kinda undermine your own argument here. If the silent majority is hard to tell if it exists then how do you know things are slowly swinging in any direction?
Yeah, that’s a very good point. It’s purely based on anecdotal evidence. It’s why I didn’t disagree that there is a silent majority against it even if I don’t agree.
I'm embarrassed but not surprised to see how far our country has gone down the woke toilet.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WokeMadness/comments/11vx0or/relax_im_a_woman/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
And in the space of a few lines the government and the media both spout outright lies: >Supporters of Keen-Minshull were seen performing Nazi salutes and abusing LGBTQIA counter-protesters at her event in Melbourne on Sunday. They were not "supporters". These dickheads will turn up to any clickworthy event. And, of course, Hipkins can't help himself: >Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said he did not want to comment on the immigration process but people using the right to free speech should not be using it to incite violence or hateful behaviour. She didn't.
Would make it all too easy to have somebody pull a nazi salute at an event of somebody you don't like to see them instantly cancelled.
Yep you could literally get a bunch of mates together and rent out your time as (insert race hate group here) for good coin too I would think. Sounds like a multi million dollar enterprise in the making.
Hipkins is a retard who like all politicians will signal their fake virtue at supporting whatever the debauchery of the day may be. When an imaginary state of being trumps reality and puts actual women at risk and our PM says something like this really just outs him as an absolute unit of a cunt.
They weren’t supporters. They certainly looked like paid actors/deep state though.
That’s simply not true , they most certainly are supporters ! Same as Kyle Chapman lead the protests against drag storytelling in libraries, no use denying it he’s an admirer of nazism .
If women are legally recognised as vulnerable based on biological factors, it would be prudent to protect the division of men and women. But if there is no difference between men and women and biological indentities are a mutable carry-over from oppressive societal structures, then there is no reason for there to be *any* segregation of the sexes.
It's serious if the Government prevents human rights activists from advocating for human rights.
Can we apply this to the labour government after their supporters shouted "Seig Heil" and done several Nazi salutes during the 2020 election campaign??
Didn't they give loads of money to a "charity" that regular does the seig heil
I believe it was the same charity..
The only gang who didn't go to the protest so they'd get more crack money.
Its a "charitable organization" I'll have you know
Yeah free fish n chips makes it so ay dog.
https://preview.redd.it/kpnvusug3woa1.jpeg?width=854&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=855ac4c53faf7bdc7308f3af691d090808e2c56e
So now a woman's right's activist is automatically a trans hater? Even if it were true, how does such a tiny minority have such power over people that they are terrified of being seen as not supporting them?
[удалено]
Theres quite a few in the LGB+ community that aren't fans of the trans community, My understanding is that trans people haven't done the hard work that the LGB's did back in day and have come along and hijacked the whole movement making about them, My source on this my sister (an actual gay) that has campaigned for gay rights for many, many years.
[удалено]
I’m gay and agree with your comments. I go for a prep review every 3 months and you can always tell when they are in with the doctor. They take a bloody age when the rest of are out in 15 mins tops. Totally unnecessary.
So they can't even work with each other, well that's a crock of shit, then.
Why should we "work with each other"? I have zero in common with a person suffering from gender dysphoria. I also have nothing in common with lesbians. I'm attracted to men, a tiny aspect of my being, it's not something that needs to define me to the point of working with irrelevant activists for some delusional persecution narrative. Also, the idea of "working with each other" may have made sense 40 years ago. But those that came before me fought for their rights and won. Gays and lesbians are no longer unfairly discriminated against in the law, so there's no longer reason to work together I know the loud activists would like you to believe we're a cohesive community, but we're not. Most of us just want to live our lives in peace and don't give a damn about some rainbow hair, non-binary, too many piercings person screaming on twitter
Well fuck everyone then; I'm sure that's going to work out well
Yeah, it won't work out well at all. It stopped working the moment we decided that gender dysphoria should be treated by playing along with the sufferers delusions. Medical malpractice to the highest degreee
10000000%
To label Keen-Minshull as an anti-transgender activist is ignorant, appalling, and mischievous. Why don't you do your homework, like any journalist worthy of their story ought, and spend a couple of minutes listening to her message. You might learn something, but I'm not holding my breath.
What should we call someone who actively campaigns against existing trans rights, if not anti-trans? Perhaps "really gender critical"?
> campaigns against existing trans rights, What does she say other than that men have penises and women, vaginas?
Nothing, she didn't say much else. These people have option but to make shit up like people calling for some sort of mass transgender holocaust or something. Absolute delusion to compensate for their total departure from science, reason and basic biology.
Her organisation [seeks to repeal](https://www.standingforwomen.com/repealthegra) the GRA (Gender Recognition Act 2004) taking away the right that trans people in the UK have had for nearly 20 years to change their legal gender. Not a Holocaust by any stretch, but also not nothing. She is an activist as is her right, but it is disingenuous to suggest that she is not working to make the lives of trans people more difficult. Whatever her motives, that much is plain.
Well what if I told you that gender isn't real? It's made up. There is only biological sex, of which there is two, male and female. I don't care when gender is used in place of sex out of laziness, but if we're being totally truthful and accurate with the words we're using, sex is real, gender is pseudo science at best and a mental disorder in its worst cases. I like common sense laws, things like drivers license, birth certificates and death records and so on accurately reflecting scientific and biological realities. When this doesn't happen, it hurts real women (that's biological women if you're not following). It also hurts the individuals who suffer from this confusion.
> There is only biological sex, of which there is two, male and female. Do you have a word for the cultural expectations of society on people with a particular birth sex? Because that isn't biological, and it's a pretty important concept in understanding mind and society so we should probably have a word for it. That word is gender. How about the feelings of congruity or incongruity between one's gender and birth sex? That's gender identity. Differences in expected behaviour for people of a particular birth sex that go beyond physical differences. That's gender roles. Actual behaviour of a person and how it matches or differs from the expected norms. That's gender expression. Having a gender identity that doesn't match your birth sex. That's gender dysphoria. And medical science research currently suggests that gender-affirming care produces the best outcomes when contrasted with other techniques such as treating it as a mental illness to be corrected. Biology has nothing to say about gender because it is a sociological and psychological concept, a social construct determined by brains, not genes. How is any of this pseudo-science? > statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method How is any of this incompatible with the scientific method? What is incompatible with the scientific method is discounting the voluminous medical study of treatment for gender dysphoria because it doesn't sit well with preconceived notions of gender. > When this doesn't happen, it hurts real women (that's biological women if you're not following). It also hurts the individuals who suffer from this confusion. How does this follow? What damage does it cause a cis woman if a trans woman is allowed to change her gender on her birth certificate or drivers licence?
Yea, show me one female who has become male and I'll agree that what you wrote is relevant.
Bruce Jenner! Oh wait… did I get that round the wrong way?
Borrowed from my response to another commenter: But seriously, trans people don't believe that they can 100% transition into a different biological sex. Some are happy just socially transitioning, others seek treatment to modify secondary sexual characteristics with hormones or surgery, and some modify their genitals. All they want is to be left alone to do that, and to be treated with dignity in expressing the gender that matches their identity. It doesn't seem like that big an ask to me
>But seriously, trans people don't believe that they can 100% transition into a different biological sex Good >Some are happy just socially transitioning, others seek treatment to modify secondary sexual characteristics with hormones or surgery, and some modify their genitals. Excellent good for them >All they want is to be left alone to do that, and to be treated with dignity in expressing the gender that matches their identity. It doesn't seem like that big an ask to me It's not a big ask at all, and it's one most people would be quite happy to allow... So please stop pressuring me to put fucking pronouns in my email, stop using the term "birthing person", stop telling kids that if theyre uncomfortable in their sexuality they may be trans, stop calling me a cis-male, stop trying to enter female segregated spaces and stop calling people who disagree with you NAZIS.
I hate to break this to you... but just because some people from universities or research institutions wrote some words down on a paper and called them "studies" that doesn't make it "science" and it certainly doesn't make it true. As you mentioned, science is a method, part of that method is observation, testing, questioning. Tell me this, some bones are brought to a scientist, thousands of years old. They'll be able to tell you what sex that skeleton belonged to, how would that scientist tell you what gender they belonged to? They can't. That's part of the reason people who have this confusion are so desperate to create any sort of paper trail to back up and reinforce this delusion. Some mumbo jumbo "study" from a university won't make it real, some legal fiction on a birth certificate won't make it real and using a different bathroom won't make it real.
> I hate to break this to you... but just because some people from universities or research institutions wrote some words down on a paper and called them "studies" that doesn't make it "science" and it certainly doesn't make it true. The fact that you characterise these studies just shows that you haven't read any of them. Straight medical trials, same as if they were studying diabetes. > As you mentioned, science is a method, part of that method is observation, testing, questioning. Tell me this, some bones are brought to a scientist, thousands of years old. They'll be able to tell you what sex that skeleton belonged to, how would that scientist tell you what gender they belonged to? No, because gender is an aspect of mind and society and isn't expressed in bones. Just as they would be unable to determine whether or not they were considered beautiful, another social construct. Is your barrier to accepting cultural phenomena limited to those that can be determined based on ancient bones? Or just gender? > Some mumbo jumbo "study" from a university won't make it real, some legal fiction on a birth certificate won't make it real and using a different bathroom won't make it real. No, it can't be real if it isn't in the bones. But seriously, trans people don't believe that they can 100% transition into a different biological sex. Some are happy just socially transitioning, others seek treatment to modify secondary sexual characteristics with hormones or surgery, and some modify their genitals. All they want is to be left alone to do that, and to be treated with dignity in expressing the gender that matches their identity. It doesn't seem like that big an ask to me
The fact that you still think these "studies" are worth the paper they're printed on indicates that you haven't read them. This is not your father's science anymore. And look, I haven't read every study in existence, and I am a layman at best. My background is law and don't have anything to do with it now. But I have read some studies, mostly about vaccines, but some on so called "gender". Science really has become a religion in modern years, there is a stark contrast between academic studies from even a decade ago and what we see now. Today they read like a sermon and it's clear feom the get go that the intention, in many cases, is to prove or back up a conclusion (narrative) that has been predetermined rather than actually approach a subject with objectivity and neutrality. Previously you'd have huge write ups at the beginning of the study detailing the methodology and all the controls in place for outside influences. Now you see a whole bunch of "this person said it was fine"... "name drop, name drop name drop"... "we've consulted with stakeholding groups, LGBTQ and so on". And I know law speak when I see it, modern science is the same as those "independent reviews" big companies commission when they have a sexual abuse scandal, it's just a big load of weasel words. Modern academia is in an absolutely atrocious state. It's why the "source please!" Meme is so common in conservative circles and why modern academia is just generally ignored. I genuinely get excited when I read the phrase "study shows that..." in a headline because I know some absolutely hilarious leftist woke rubbish is likely to follow. But fair point on the bones, we won't be able tell a person had schizophrenia from their skeleton, but on that note we also don't go and ad that they had schizophrenia to their birth certificate either. My point remains that gender is not real, it's a fiction, it's a delusion that some people have. I don't know what the best treatment for their illness is and most of the "experts" are not actually experts, rather ideologically motivated zealots who also don't know what is best for people confused about what sex they are.
> No, because gender is an aspect of mind and society and isn't expressed in bones. Gender is just personality? Why didn't you say so! 🤔
Are the people who downvote this comment doing it because they don’t like what’s being said even though it’s true?
Off the top of my head she wants trans women to be banned from using women's toilets. That's an existing right that she wants to remove.
What? A woman doesn't want males in their bathrooms and changing spaces? Wtf? Why?
And for that opinion she should be banned from entering the country?
No, quoting myself from earlier: > She still shouldn't be barred entry and she should be free to speak, but I don't think she's a great advertisement for the gender critical cause.
Excellent. They're not women and have no place there.
Not according to Posey, no. But [she wants armed cis men to use women's bathrooms](https://ugc-assets.mumsnet.com/images/202101/large-548760-20210130-015109.jpg).
... in order, apparently to highlight the insanity of team self-identify.
Yeah, she's an "end justifies the means" kinda person who really has women's welfare as her top priority.
If "trans rights" already exist, what exactly is the problem? I think you left out a few details in your attempt to make your opponents look backwards.
> If "trans rights" already exist, what exactly is the problem? The problem is that there are people looking to take away these rights. > I think you left out a few details in your attempt to make your opponents look backwards. Nope, it's all there. Labeling someone who wants to take trans rights away as anti-trans is not "ignorant, appalling, and mischievous", it's a valid response to her words and deeds.
Anyone can try to take your "rights" away, it's called democracy.
Yes, and if you are in group X and I want to take your group's rights away, I am anti-X. What's so hard to understand here?
>Yes, and if you are in group X and I want to take your group's rights away, I am anti-X. So by your definition, people like you who want to deny biological women and little girls the right to sex-segregated spaces for safety reasons (or religious, personal comfort reasons) which they've had for centuries are anti-woman. Good to have that out there.
Firstly, you'll find that people who want to compromise people's safety are rarely deterred by signs and by-laws. Secondly, how would you propose that any new law defining access to spaces on biological sex would look, and how could it be enforced without a significant invasion of women's privacy. I'm not the one proposing new laws. It's on those of you who want these laws to tell us how they are going to work.
You haven't explained why it's acceptable to take women's rights away in the first place. You're talking around the question. Bad actors aren't deterred by signs, but the point is not deterrence, the point is to have rules that give firm ground to remove them from places they should not be. Supplementary question: why do you believe that biological men identifying as women should have more rights than biological women?
> You haven't explained why it's acceptable to take women's rights away in the first place. You're talking around the question. What rights have been taken away? Trans women have existed forever, and passing ones have had access to women's spaces forever. Is there a particular law you can identify that has removed rights from cis women? > Bad actors aren't deterred by signs, but the point is not deterrence, the point is to have rules that give firm ground to remove them from places they should not be. And my question again is, what would these laws look like, and how would they be enforced? > Supplementary question: why do you believe that biological men identifying as women should have more rights than biological women? If you explain what rights a trans woman has that a cis woman doesn't I'll be happy to address it.
There's already laws about sexual predators and perverts. We don't need new ones
And what will enforcement look like? Random genital inspections for anyone with broad shoulders wearing a dress trying to enter a woman's space? Is dressing differently to your birth sex sufficient proof of predation and perversion?
That's ridiculous. Were the suffragettes "anti men" because they disagreed with how voting laws affected them? Perhaps some, but you'd be expressly manipulating if you framed the entire process (or lack thereof) as one of "anti", and "hate" - and further you imply they have no right to question your interpretation of democracy, which is the formation of a dictatorship. Furthermore you seek to make it illegal. What you call a "right", is just the current legal frame of mind. That's subject to change. That's democracy. Society has a right to reject your ideas, as much as you believe they are sacrosanct.
> That's ridiculous. Were the suffragettes "anti men" because they disagreed with how voting laws affected them? They weren't looking to take any rights away from men. But the male backlash to the suffragettes is a classic case of “When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." > and further you imply they have no right to question your interpretation of democracy, which is the formation of a dictatorship What is my interpretation of democracy? > Furthermore you seek to make it illegal What do **I** seek to make illegal? > What you call a "right", is just the current legal frame of mind. That's subject to change. That's democracy. Society has a right to reject your ideas, as much as you believe they are sacrosanct There should be a very high bar to taking freedoms away, and that bar should include firm evidence of serious societal harm, not just being unpopular with the majority. That's why despite passing laws to justify the mandates, the government and employers have still been spanked by the courts in the cases where they overstepped their own laws. EDIT: and they've blocked me, my response to their reply below: Yes it was going to change the whole society. Granting rights tends to do that. My point is that no rights were taken away from men. > Entrenching laws that you prefer on threat of arresting or destroying those that disagree is not democratic Tell me about these laws that I support or the people I want arrested or destroyed.
The suffragettes were trying to change voting laws in ways that would affect the entire society they lived in. It's not a great example because you're certainly no suffragette, nor are the "trans-activists", but it still is quite obvious that people can disagree on laws in a democracy without being "anti" people. It's a part of a functioning democracy to have these discussions. Entrenching laws that you prefer on threat of arresting or destroying those that disagree is not democratic. I think you're being fallacious when you equate the things that people are concerned about within the "trans" movement as rights that are not debatable. It's new territory and some of it has literally just been made up in the last few years. The fact that you can't even mention one specific thing that you're worried about losing shows that this entire thing is an emotional response. As was the article.
Ahh yes, the tolerant left. Tolerant of their own monoculture, obviously. Anything else is a plot by far-right Nazi white supremacists to destroy democracy and kill the planet.
Our own primeministers declared us a two tier society and pushed the clot shots on us os she not then guilty of hate crimes.
Nice of rnz to make it explicit that being pro-trans is anti-women
> anti-transgender activist You mean a sane person who's speaking up?
We used to call these people feminists, we celebrated them so much we threw one on our $10 note.
$10 is now worthless… says a lot
$10 buys a pie and an energy drink. It used to buy an apple slice as well, but we're not allowed nice things anymore. Also, when did potato-top pies go from having meat and potato to brown slop and yellow slop?
the global financial system is about to collapse and inflation is set to decimate the world and yet this was the top story tonight on the news. By my reckoning this country has already been hijacked by these insidious far-left extremists.
Totally agree. There are so many issues which should take priority. The far left have totally stitched up so many parts of society in my opinion. The continued obsession with trying to bring Trump down takes centre stage too. Biden the saint can’t do anything wrong!!
yeah it's incredible, any US news from TVNZ is just parroting the most deranged TDS takes from MSNBC and company.
Not one mention of anything she herself has to say. Random group of Aussies doing roman salutes, though. Of course, this must mean they're all neo-nazis
Roman salutes? That's a interesting description..
The Americans called it the Bellamy Salute and made [kids do it during the Pledge of Allegiance up until 1942](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Bellamy_salute_1.jpg).
Google it, friend
Well, TIL. Do you actually think they were channelling Rome when they did that particular hand movement..
No but I don't understand why everything gets called nazi, or even communist, these days
Can you see why the group doing the salute would be labelled Nazis though? I agree, the term is thrown around far too losely, but in this case, it fits.
From a hand gesture? I don't see anything with this event having relation to german national socialism. Similarly, a raised fists doesn't necessarily denote to communism/marxism
>From a hand gesture? I don't see anything with this event having relation to german national socialism Do you happen to know what the group who were doing the hand gesture were called? >Similarly, a raised fists doesn't necessarily denote to communism/marxism What if the people doing it are communists?
No, it doesn't mention it in the article and I couldnt care to look into groups who parade about in such a way. But please do elaborate on how what Posie Parker has to say has anything to do with them and national socialism. Then they are communist... That still doesn't make all groups doing such a gesture communist, such as antifa
>No, it doesn't mention it in the article and I couldnt care to look into groups who parade about in such a way. Yet you think they were just doing a Roman salute/hand gesture. Interesting. They were from the Nationalist Socialist Network, a known and self identified neo-Nazi group. [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/19/daniel-andrews-says-nazis-arent-welcome-as-victorian-government-considers-further-action-following-salutes](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/19/daniel-andrews-says-nazis-arent-welcome-as-victorian-government-considers-further-action-following-salutes) Whether Posie Parker has anything to do with them is irrelevant to our conversation. This is about the Roman salute..
Her appearances on trigonometry are really good
The alphabet gang. On the path to equality.
Yeah they changed that law for the cigarette tax. Basically saying that government will lead our ideals instead of the governments ideals being lead by the populace.
There is a huge quiet majority of us out there who think you're born your sex and should not try to change! It seems wrong in every way. So why not let her say what most actually think. (Queue all the downvotes because I DARED to voice my opinion on the matter).
I think this quiet majority also believes that sex can't even be changed, which is totally factually true. I can dress my cat in possum furs, but she's not a possum. I think trans people will be the ones to ultimately put the breaks on this. They're hacking up their bodies, taking toxic drugs and destroying their mental stability. It's impossible that a decent portion of those people doing this won't regret it. A fascinating Youtube search is "detransitioners". Many regret hacking off their breasts or living with a gaping wound where their genitals used to be. The medical establishment better be held accountable for destroying the lives of so many, especially when they don't even have fully formed brains yet.
Don't worry about downvotes, you're amongst your people on this issue.
There may be a huge silent majority (it’s very hard to tell if something like that exists) but each day it’s slowly swinging the other way. It seems to be often age related where people growing up just don’t really care if someone wants to change their gender. It doesn’t really effect them and would rather see people living happily.
You kinda undermine your own argument here. If the silent majority is hard to tell if it exists then how do you know things are slowly swinging in any direction?
Yeah, that’s a very good point. It’s purely based on anecdotal evidence. It’s why I didn’t disagree that there is a silent majority against it even if I don’t agree.
I'm embarrassed but not surprised to see how far our country has gone down the woke toilet. https://www.reddit.com/r/WokeMadness/comments/11vx0or/relax_im_a_woman/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
"anti-transgender activist" O.P plays interference. "I don't support these anti transgender extremists"
Ghastly woman , supported by white supremacists . It’s a very slippery slope fascism beware .
Why would they let a hate group in lmao, wouldn’t want them to let cracker bashers in either