Hello

[Brian Peacock]

Sure, people complain. The number of cis women who are being harangued, bullied and publicly vilified because someone mistakenly thinks they're a transgender woman has shot through the roof.

[Cunt]

So predictably, you can't or won't provide such language for a civil expression of that complaint.

I'm glad we all agree that the complaint simply cannot be made, without breaching some new rule.

Religion is answers that cannot be questioned. Same as ever.

[Joe]

So predictably, you can't or won't provide such language for a civil expression of that complaint.

I'm glad we all agree that the complaint simply cannot be made, without breaching some new rule.

Religion is answers that cannot be questioned. Same as ever.

Why should anybody answer your questions when all you do is ignore or evade theirs?

Sauce for the goose and all that.

[Cunt]

A third person pops by to agree that they can not or will not provide such language for a civil expression of that complaint.

I guess since I also can't craft such a sentence within the rules here, that makes four. So far. Obviously, it isn't because it's a religious belief that can't be questioned. The real reason is going to be revealed eventually.

When someone shows compassion toward woman who have at least one y chromosome.

[Brian Peacock]

A third person pops by to agree that they can not or will not provide such language for a civil expression of that complaint.

If you think it's so important can you provide examples of such language? And can you do that without presuming that transgender people are unaware of the feelings of others; without implying that they're fundamentally without empathy, unsympathetic, intolerant? The premise of your question is broken, because it presumes that transgender people can't be engaged in an honest and mutually respectful manner. The premise broken further by also presuming that the problem always and only ever lies with the transgender person.

[JimC]

The key point that Cunt is trying to make is that any form of complaint about a trans gender person is impossible because it would cause woke outrage, no matter how carefully expressed. He is contending that the sensibilities of transgendered people are sacred cows, and that anything that might remotely appear critical is verboten.

There may be a little truth in that when it comes to the petty spats in some parts of truculently progressive academia, the small, silly minority that lives by a "I'm more woke than you" attitude. However, back in the real world of the polite negotiations of behaviour in spaces like change rooms, common sense would prevail in most cases...

[pErvinalia]

However, back in the real world...

A place Cunt doesn't inhabit.

[Cunt]

Partly JimC, but mainly that no-one, not you, BP or me, can arrange the phrasing of a woman (like the business owners attacked by Yaniv and the BC HRC) in such a way that it is 'proper'. Forget the 'trans gender woman', just think about those business owners who didn't want to handle a scrotum due to their beliefs, or training, or preferences.

It's not because you aren't polite, it's because you (and everyone under these rules) is not allowed to describe the problem honestly, and empathetically. The complaintant certainly is not.

But we can go over what you think of me and my obvious rejection of this religion instead. It's plenty safe.

[Tero]

Nobody will find this..er...long debate in a year. The thread title fails to mention transgender.

[Cunt]

Nobody will find this..er...long debate in a year. The thread title fails to mention transgender.

This thread is public though, so I can see without logging in, in case someone suddenly makes sense of the words they use.

Like 'transgender', the words have slippery, vague meanings to help avoid clarity in the uncomfortable areas.

[Brian Peacock]

Like 'transgender', the words have slippery, vague meanings to help avoid clarity in the uncomfortable areas

Hmmm. No sure you can really make that stick, nor continue to pretend that it hasn't been dealt with already...

The point is, a transgender person is someone whose gender identity doesn't align with their sex. Surely that's simple enough to grasp, even for someone as confused as you're pretending to be?

That'll do. Now we have ONE definition out of the way.

If you're finding that slippery it's probably only because you've greased it up. Let's have no more of this nonsense.

[Joe]

Partly JimC, but mainly that no-one, not you, BP or me, can arrange the phrasing of a woman (like the business owners attacked by Yaniv and the BC HRC) in such a way that it is 'proper'. Forget the 'trans gender woman', just think about those business owners who didn't want to handle a scrotum due to their beliefs, or training, or preferences.

It's not because you aren't polite, it's because you (and everyone under these rules) is not allowed to describe the problem honestly, and empathetically. The complaintant certainly is not.

But we can go over what you think of me and my obvious rejection of this religion instead. It's plenty safe.

It sounds to me like the business owners arranged their phrasing well enough, since they won their lawsuits.

As you are aware, the media has a well known bias toward controvery. If you rely exclusively on them, you're not likely to see much about effective negotiations that resolved issues women, cis and trans, have raised over bathroom and changing facilities. That's where you should be looking, at the successes and how those arguments were phrased.

I don't know about Jim, Brian, or Perv, but I'm not doing that for you. I've got other stuff to do.

[Cunt]

Like 'transgender', the words have slippery, vague meanings to help avoid clarity in the uncomfortable areas

Hmmm. No sure you can really make that stick, nor continue to pretend that it hasn't been dealt with already...

The point is, a transgender person is someone whose gender identity doesn't align with their sex. Surely that's simple enough to grasp, even for someone as confused as you're pretending to be?

That'll do. Now we have ONE definition out of the way.

If you're finding that slippery it's probably only because you've greased it up. Let's have no more of this nonsense.

the terms rely on a clear explanation of gender, which is pretty slippery.

One can have a gender expression that sincerely is accepted as making them a woman, while another gets called a pervert.

The John Money theories aren't all that defensible though. You should check the history of that bit of 'research' before you get behind it too firmly.

[Brian Peacock]

Haven't you figured out the insinuations thing is a waste of time with me yet? As is the changing the subject thing.

[Cunt]

Maybe you have already, and accept it.

I found it pretty damning, but I guess I won't know.

So this 'totally true' solid definition of transgender...can you tell me the real difference between a transgender, and a woman?

Or a transgender, and a demented bathroom-predator sex pervert?

Or can it be anyone, as long as they express a certain set of thoughts?