Was just thinking how come the war thread has become about trans rights :laugh:

Never heard of this before…:oh:

By David Wilkes, DMail. March 26th
The co - creator of Father Ted has told how transgender activists destroyed his home life and his career.
In a rare TV interview with the BBC’s Stephan Nolan, Graham Linehan said being ‘thoroughly cancelled’ ended his marriage and killed off plans for a stage musical of his sitcom.
Mr. Linehan, 53, was among a number of figures who supported JK Rowling when she was labelled a TERF, or trans exclusionary radical feminist. “I just said, “no hang on a sec, stop calling these women TERF’s, stop sending them abuse….let them speak. And for that they just destroyed me….
“I do believe we will look back and go, how did we get so insane? How did the whole world believe that JK Rowling was a bigot despite no evidence being presented to that end?

Then I misspoke. Do you think if I thought someone was a bigot, I wouldn't flat out call them a bigot? I haven't called anyone a terf or any other name.

Anyway, apologies TS for bailing on what had the potential to be a good, on-going discussion, but I'll bow out now, and the forum can carry on saying exactly the same things in 7768787 different threads about exactly the same thing.

Appreciate that, but save yourself the hassle. I'm out of this discussion for good.

If his wife left him because he kept attacking the same group of people, how is that the fault of anyone other than himself? I know claiming cancellation is popular these days, but at some point your own marriage has to be your own responsibility.

And therein lies the problem. I didn't say you had called anyone anything, I said there was some implication you thought there was bigotry involved but never said you called anyone anything.

Your reaction here is exactly why these threads go nowhere and why I don't normally get involved. I had actually enjoyed reading your posts as they are obviously well thought out and not just throwing around insults but even you now don't want to listen to opposing views so don't know why I bothered either

Cool.

Let me just expand on bigotry, quickly. I wrote a post about myself a while back and how I was bigoted towards Muslims under the guise of being anti-religious. It wasn't my intention to be that way, but it was the end result of the positions I'd taken. I called myself out for that and I changed my attitude, so bigotry can still be unintentional if it exists. .

There’s no denying that the same arguments used in the anti-trans campaign are incredibly similar to the ones that were used in the anti-gay campaign, the ‘corruption’ of children, the general fear mongering of perversion that apparently came along with allowing these people their rights, to say otherwise is either wilful ignorance or an outright lie to ease the conscience of those going along with the hate campaign against an already maligned population.

It's undeniable that bigots exist and undeniable that they have their own reasons for attacking certain people and latching onto a genuine debate to do that. So yes of course that happens. There are also undeniably a number (a decent number) of aggressive men who have latched onto Trans Rights and use it to openly attack women on the grounds that those women "are just TERF's" when those men in fact don't give a **** about trans people or trans rights.

So on those grounds I agree with you. There are people who pretend to care about women's rights as an excuse to aggressively target the LGBTQ community (those people are mostly men).

There are people who pretend to care about trans rights as an excuse to aggressively target women (... also mostly men).

I think you're making a logical error in assuming that because the rhetoric "against" the issue is similar and is being used in the same way by those people, that the issues in fact ARE identical and there are no additional factors in the trans debate that need to be considered that didn't exist in the fight for gay rights. There are clear additional factors.

As a rule of thumb, anyone who starts mocking or just says "pfft forget trans rights" or has no sympathy for the situation, should be regarded with suspicion.

People who just want there to be acceptance that an open discussion is needed, and that social research needs to be done to ensure the best possible outcomes... Probably don't have some secret hidden agenda of bigotry.

Which rights is it exactly that trans people don't have?

They have their rights, end off.

Now they just want to invade everyone elses.

Transgender status is a protected category, "gender identity" is not, and that's where the problem lies - advocates of the latter want to pretend it's the same thing as the former (it isn't) and use that to push through legislation that has not been safety assessed.

Similar to how sex isn't recognised as a factor in hate crimes. The recent push to "make misogyny a hate crime" chose the worst possible wording - like yeah, if sex was added to the five factors which denote a hate crime, misogyny would become a hate crime, but when you're trying to get things put into legislature, they should be phrased in a way which doesn't sound like a post on BuzzFeed :joker:

It is a bit weird how sex (real) isn't recognised as a factor in hate crimes, but religion and transgender status (imaginary) are ... But I guess if sex was recognised, transwomen could claim that they're the victims of hate crimes based on the fact they're male if they're not acknowledged as women...

People are bringing up the trans swimmer in every discussion about trans issues but if she has a biogical advantage, why did cis women beat her in the other two races she competed in?

yes that must mean that men have no advantage over women when it comes to sport

:rolleyes:

Michael Phelps is literally a biological freak of nature with clear advantages and nobody thinks its unfair for him to compete

no he isnt

This is simply an argument for "genderless sport" with no categories or divisions at all; if it's not unfair for trans women to compete against cis women because of their biological advantage, then it's not unfair for cis men to compete against trans women because of their hormonal advantage.

If that happens there will be very few actual trans women (any who are on hormone replacement) in sport. None at all in heavily physical sports.

For some reason, I suspect you'll be less supportive of this argument if that happens, and fully behind the trans people (AND cis women) who will deem it unfair when there are only cis men in sport.

Exactly, if it effects transwomen in sport, sport is a human right, if it effects women suddenly sport is the most unimportant thing ever and women being "kind" is much more important

This man doesn't support women.

Don't worry though, millions of women will still go out and vote for him and then complain about it afterwards.

he is right about one thing, discussing anyone with a penis being able to access women only spaces is not helpful and we shouldn't be discussing it in any way shape or form

Tips his hand to be honest. For anyone who has fully signed up to the rhetoric being pushed on this, the only answer to that question is "Yes". No ifs, ands or buts... it's just "Yes" :shrug:.

The fact that he's uncomfortable saying yes shows that he knows fine well that it's a very complicated debate.

What a joke... This isn't an opinion it's a considered political position.

What answer will lose me the least votes...

He couldn't give a toss about transfer rights, women's rights or anyone else's rights except his own.

yep he is just trying to be popular

spinless non-leader material