mids
New Member
Posts: 61,025
|
Post by mids on Mar 10, 2020 13:37:10 GMT
Rosemary's Baby is brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Mar 10, 2020 13:40:58 GMT
But it's the same from you. No attempt to explain why they shouldn't publish the article. No attempt to engage. just shut it down. Because it's hate speech. It is a pretty close parallel to the Guardian publishing pseudo-science to explain that black people and white people shouldn't use the same drinking fountains, and defending the KKK as "clearly not a hate group". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2020 13:51:45 GMT
Cassowary territory..
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 10, 2020 13:55:34 GMT
But it's the same from you. No attempt to explain why they shouldn't publish the article. No attempt to engage. just shut it down. Because it's hate speech. It is a pretty close parallel to the Guardian publishing pseudo-science to explain that black people and white people shouldn't use the same drinking fountains, and defending the KKK as "clearly not a hate group". Which bit is "hate speech"? |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Mar 10, 2020 14:08:27 GMT
All the stuff about excluding one class of woman from what she described as women. All the stuff about denying them access and making their lives harder. All the stuff about denying their inherent nature.
It's like homophobia from the '70s: "Why don't they just stop being gay and start behaving naturally like the reproductive beings they evolved to be" is obviously hate speech. This is exactly the same.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,025
|
Post by mids on Mar 10, 2020 14:10:55 GMT
How can they be women if they've got cocks?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2020 14:19:50 GMT
With all due respect, and it's clear you're sincere about your feelings here, I feel the confusion is forced. Most humans will happily accept the gender of someone in accordance with their physical attributes. But to insist that a male dressed or acting as a woman, be regarded as a woman - and vice versa, a woman dressed or acting as a male, be regarded as a male, is surely an imposition?
It's the insistence that's the problem: personally I don't care much what anyone does with themselves, but to insist that I accept a physical gender type as the opposite to what it actually is, is an imposition.
To further go on to insult or take legal action against me is persecution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 10, 2020 14:33:13 GMT
All the stuff about excluding one class of woman from what she described as women. All the stuff about denying them access and making their lives harder. All the stuff about denying their inherent nature. It's like homophobia from the '70s: "Why don't they just stop being gay and start behaving naturally like the reproductive beings they evolved to be" is obviously hate speech. This is exactly the same. The problem is what she describes as women are biological women. The others aren't and no matter how much you close your eyes and wish, they aren't. Nobody is asking them to stop being what they are just pointing out you can't be what you aren't. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 10, 2020 14:38:43 GMT
Rosemary's Baby is brilliant. Is that a quote from Polanski? It looks like he hasn't mended his ways at all. |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Mar 10, 2020 14:54:17 GMT
All the stuff about excluding one class of woman from what she described as women. All the stuff about denying them access and making their lives harder. All the stuff about denying their inherent nature. It's like homophobia from the '70s: "Why don't they just stop being gay and start behaving naturally like the reproductive beings they evolved to be" is obviously hate speech. This is exactly the same. The problem is what she describes as women are biological women. The others aren't and no matter how much you close your eyes and wish, they aren't. Nobody is asking them to stop being what they are just pointing out you can't be what you aren't. Are you in favour of denying trans women the right to be women, to act and behave as women, to deny them their identity, and to force them to live a lie? The same as the 70s homophobes wanted teh gays to spend their lives in the closet? |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,025
|
Post by mids on Mar 10, 2020 14:54:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 10, 2020 15:07:12 GMT
The problem is what she describes as women are biological women. The others aren't and no matter how much you close your eyes and wish, they aren't. Nobody is asking them to stop being what they are just pointing out you can't be what you aren't. Are you in favour of denying trans women the right to be women, to act and behave as women, to deny them their identity, and to force them to live a lie? The same as the 70s homophobes wanted teh gays to spend their lives in the closet? Nope they can live as women all they like, bang in favour of that. Carry on. That's just you making stuff up again. The right to be women? That's a bit tricky. I don't really know what that means. I may have the right to be a woman but i haven't got the ability. |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Mar 10, 2020 15:24:11 GMT
That's because you're not a woman, unlike trans women.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 10, 2020 15:30:35 GMT
Who aren't biological women either
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,025
|
Post by mids on Mar 10, 2020 15:35:32 GMT
Simple test for the transphiles. Fcuk one.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 10, 2020 19:40:16 GMT
"A campaigner has lost a legal challenge against the government over gender-neutral passports. Christie Elan-Cane argued a policy preventing someone from obtaining a passport with an unspecified gender was unlawful on human rights grounds. But the Court of Appeal ruled the policy did not amount to an unlawful breach of the activist's human rights. In a ruling on Tuesday, three senior judges dismissed the appeal, which was contested by the Home Office." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51823318Good. Now go and get some psychiatric help. You have a mental health problem, that is all. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 10, 2020 21:55:49 GMT
I think the spirit of our legal system is about punishment, restitution, sentience and rehabilitation. Yes, I think we have to accept that there are no crimes which render the perpetrator beyond redemption. In this case, the cunt should have been made to go back and do his stir. I sort of see what the banner's driving at but I think it's a questionable line of attack from a moral point of view. Still, the French have let themselves down pretty badly here. On a side note: are his films any good? I don’t think the banner is saying he should be prevented from having a career. Just asking why he has one. It’s a subtle but important difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 10, 2020 21:59:19 GMT
Why should they? How is a newspaper deciding not to give space to a particular view “eradicating dissent”? Why should they? Bizarre question. because it's a valid opinion written by one of their columnists. And it's not the newspaper deciding not to give it space, It clearly has given it space. It's people trying to stop it publishing views they don't agree with: But it's the same from you. No attempt to explain why they shouldn't publish the article. No attempt to engage. just shut it down. Lots of people think lots of opinions are valid? Some would argue that racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism are all valid opinions. The Guardian already has comment policies that prevent certain things. Why should they be required to host opinions like the one in the article? Why should people not be allowed to complain? And why are they required to engage? I wouldn’t engage with somebody who advocated that slavery was a good thing? Is it just because you personally like this opinion which is why you’re Taking issue with those who say the Guardian should be a space free if this kind of thing? Also your question is bizarre. I am not one of the Guardian staff who has complained about this piece so why should I be required to explain a position I have not stated? Although to go back you do realise that it’s still lot a case of “eradicating dissent.” |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 10, 2020 22:02:39 GMT
He’s the contrarian bloke who argues that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry? I pass thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 10, 2020 22:04:11 GMT
Simple test for the transphiles. Fcuk one. This is the weirdest comment I have ever seen on this board. Which considering what you typically write is saying a lot. Why would anybody just go and have sex with any old random person based solely on gender identity? How odd. |
|
