The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Kathleen Stock: Protests at Oxford Union as talk goes ahead - BBC News

Credit to Stock for refusing to be shut down. With Cherry doing likewise in Edinburgh we're hopefully starting to see folk showing a bit of backbone here. Edinburgh University should take note.

---

Board has obviously opened up again. Discussion over and back to point scoring. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Kathleen Stock: Protests at Oxford Union as talk goes ahead - BBC News

Credit to Stock for refusing to be shut down. With Cherry doing likewise in Edinburgh we're hopefully starting to see folk showing a bit of backbone here. Edinburgh University should take note.

---

Ironically 95% of people would agree with what Kathleen Stock has to say that a man can't magically become a woman, the 5% who are trying to prevent Kathleen Stock from speaking at the Oxford Union are doing so because they know their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w75i-65HDqY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Board has obviously opened up again. Discussion over and back to point scoring. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

It's been nice and quiet with normal discussions, let's hope the bickering doesn't start again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Board has obviously opened up again. Discussion over and back to point scoring. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

There's surely plenty to discuss around these attempts to shut down free speech?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

Ironically 95% of people would agree with what Kathleen Stock has to say that a man can't magically become a woman, the 5% who are trying to prevent Kathleen Stock from speaking at the Oxford Union are doing so because they know their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w75i-65HDqY

---

As Stock said last night: "If you don't go with reality it will hit you in the face. You can't overcome your body. When you are lost in the fiction and can't talk about reality you've got a problem."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

There's surely plenty to discuss around these attempts to shut down free speech?

---

You weren't too keen when it was Gary Linekar.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

As Stock said last night: "If you don't go with reality it will hit you in the face. You can't overcome your body. When you are lost in the fiction and can't talk about reality you've got a problem."

---

Isn't it ironic that it was right wingers that had a problem with free speech in 1970's they campaigned to get Monty Pythons, The Life of Brian banned, because it poked fun at religious dogma.

Everyone laughed at the absurdity of Stan when he said that he wanted to be a woman, and that a man can get pregnant. If the Life of Brian was made today, people that call themselves left wing, would be dissolving into a puddle from their own tears at how offensive this would be to them, I would say that there is nothing left wing about these new puritan's, because they say nothing about economic issues and it all goes to show how cancel culture is the midwife of stupidity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs

There was a channel 4 documentary last night on the subject anyone catch it ,I've not yet

Review sounds interesting

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...P=share_btn_tw

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other


A very interesting comment piece in the observer.

I had a gay couple in the taxi yesterday, going up to Fountainbridge for brunch, one had a summer dress on, handbag and earrings, other shorts and shirt, it's still a bit strange seeing it but TBH not overly fussed what people want to wear nowadays. I said in a light hearted manner " so it's a summers dress type of day today" he laughed and said yes, he said he still gets looked at strangely but will do his own thing nonetheless. I said said well done you, do what you want and sod anyone who gives you grief, got a decent tip and left a happy punter at his destination. Basically life's too short to worry about others and what they are or what they wear, be nice and accept we're all different, it makes the world a better place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-C

I had a gay couple in the taxi yesterday, going up to Fountainbridge for brunch, one had a summer dress on, handbag and earrings, other shorts and shirt, it's still a bit strange seeing it but TBH not overly fussed what people want to wear nowadays. I said in a light hearted manner " so it's a summers dress type of day today" he laughed and said yes, he said he still gets looked at strangely but will do his own thing nonetheless. I said said well done you, do what you want and sod anyone who gives you grief, got a decent tip and left a happy punter at his destination. Basically life's too short to worry about others and what they are or what they wear, be nice and accept we're all different, it makes the world a better place.

---

Couldn’t agree more.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-C

I had a gay couple in the taxi yesterday, going up to Fountainbridge for brunch, one had a summer dress on, handbag and earrings, other shorts and shirt, it's still a bit strange seeing it but TBH not overly fussed what people want to wear nowadays. I said in a light hearted manner " so it's a summers dress type of day today" he laughed and said yes, he said he still gets looked at strangely but will do his own thing nonetheless. I said said well done you, do what you want and sod anyone who gives you grief, got a decent tip and left a happy punter at his destination. Basically life's too short to worry about others and what they are or what they wear, be nice and accept we're all different, it makes the world a better place.

---

This x100.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-C

I had a gay couple in the taxi yesterday, going up to Fountainbridge for brunch, one had a summer dress on, handbag and earrings, other shorts and shirt, it's still a bit strange seeing it but TBH not overly fussed what people want to wear nowadays. I said in a light hearted manner " so it's a summers dress type of day today" he laughed and said yes, he said he still gets looked at strangely but will do his own thing nonetheless. I said said well done you, do what you want and sod anyone who gives you grief, got a decent tip and left a happy punter at his destination. Basically life's too short to worry about others and what they are or what they wear, be nice and accept we're all different, it makes the world a better place.

---

It’s really such an easy thing and would solve a lot of the problems with our world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-C

I had a gay couple in the taxi yesterday, going up to Fountainbridge for brunch, one had a summer dress on, handbag and earrings, other shorts and shirt, it's still a bit strange seeing it but TBH not overly fussed what people want to wear nowadays. I said in a light hearted manner " so it's a summers dress type of day today" he laughed and said yes, he said he still gets looked at strangely but will do his own thing nonetheless. I said said well done you, do what you want and sod anyone who gives you grief, got a decent tip and left a happy punter at his destination. Basically life's too short to worry about others and what they are or what they wear, be nice and accept we're all different, it makes the world a better place.

---

I think that's all fine. The problems arise when people getting to live their life impacts on others trying to live theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think that's all fine. The problems arise when people getting to live their life impacts on others trying to live theirs.

---

That would rule out a **** load of freedoms we all take for granted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

That would rule out a **** load of freedoms we all take for granted.

---

Almost all of them in fact?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

That would rule out a **** load of freedoms we all take for granted.

---

How?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Almost all of them in fact?!

---

Again, how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think that's all fine. The problems arise when people getting to live their life impacts on others trying to live theirs.

---

How would living their lives as they wish impact on others,unless what they do is illegal. We're talking about two gay guys, one wearing a dress and having the freedom to do so without harassment or ridicule, I honestly think you're controversial and argumentative deliberately just to get a reaction and that in my mind is trolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-C

How would living their lives as they wish impact on others,unless what they do is illegal. We're talking about two gay guys, one wearing a dress and having the freedom to do so without harassment or ridicule, I honestly think you're controversial and argumentative deliberately just to get a reaction and that in my mind is trolling.

---

I don't see how what I've said is trolling. I genuinely think it's none of my business how people choose to lead their life. Of course they should be able to lead their life without harassment or ridicule. But surely you don't believe that can be unconstrained? You must be familiar in the trans rights debate on the issues around single sex spaces, including prisons, single sex health and social care and so on.

To move it from the trans issue, you might remember the naked rambler. He wanted, for whatever reason, to ramble naked. He wanted to live his life as he choose. Unfortunately in doing that he kept getting lifted and jailed. I couldn't see that him being repeatedly jailed did anyone any good. But what about people who, for whatever reason, didn't want to see him naked? How do you balance his rights with those of others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I don't see how what I've said is trolling. I genuinely think it's none of my business how people choose to lead their life. Of course they should be able to lead their life without harassment or ridicule. But surely you don't believe that can be unconstrained? You must be familiar in the trans rights debate on the issues around single sex spaces, including prisons, single sex health and social care and so on.

To move it from the trans issue, you might remember the naked rambler. He wanted, for whatever reason, to ramble naked. He wanted to live his life as he choose. Unfortunately in doing that he kept getting lifted and jailed. I couldn't see that him being repeatedly jailed did anyone any good. But what about people who, for whatever reason, didn't want to see him naked? How do you balance his rights with those of others?

---

My post had nothing to do with the well documented problems with the trans rights issues which I admit the SG got drastically wrong and the naked rambler broke the law around decency in public, so in his case more fool him. I posted a scenario in my taxi that I thought should show that if we all just let people be themselves, the world may be a better place, it was to point out homophobia and hatred should be a thing of the past and maybe life would be a better place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-C

My post had nothing to do with the well documented problems with the trans rights issues which I admit the SG got drastically wrong and the naked rambler broke the law around decency in public, so in his case more fool him. I posted a scenario in my taxi that I thought should show that if we all just let people be themselves, the world may be a better place, it was to point out homophobia and hatred should be a thing of the past and maybe life would be a better place.

---

To be fair, homophobia has nothing to do with the trans debate going on at the moment. They are two separate issues and we need to be careful not to conflate them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-C

My post had nothing to do with the well documented problems with the trans rights issues which I admit the SG got drastically wrong and the naked rambler broke the law around decency in public, so in his case more fool him. I posted a scenario in my taxi that I thought should show that if we all just let people be themselves, the world may be a better place, it was to point out homophobia and hatred should be a thing of the past and maybe life would be a better place.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Since90+2

To be fair, homophobia has nothing to do with the trans debate going on at the moment. They are two separate issues and we need to be careful not to conflate them.

---

The guy was wearing a dress, was he trans or just a gay guy wearing a dress? sometimes we need to look at these people as simply humans doing what they feel is natural and get on with our own lives. If a man is portraying as a woman and he gets grief in the street, that would be homophobia, whether he had a wig on or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-C

The guy was wearing a dress, was he trans or just a gay guy wearing a dress? sometimes we need to look at these people as simply humans doing what they feel is natural and get on with our own lives. If a man is portraying as a woman and he gets grief in the street, that would be homophobia, whether he had a wig on or not.

---

To answer your first question, I've absolutely no idea, how could I possibly know that? And to me it makes absolutely no difference. You are the one raising the question about this guys identification.

My point was simply is that this is a very nuanced debate and conflating homophobia with some people's concerns around the trans movement are completely different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

How?

---

If you smoke, chances are someone will be passive smoking with you. You drive a car it effects the air quality. You have a party at home, neighbours might lose sleep. You eat white rice and valuable farming land for brown rice needed to sustain local nourishment in some countries gets lost.

The list is endless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

If you smoke, chances are someone will be passive smoking with you. You drive a car it effects the air quality. You have a party at home, neighbours might lose sleep. You eat white rice and valuable farming land for brown rice needed to sustain local nourishment in some countries gets lost.

The list is endless.

---

I'm actually staggered that anyone would find the point about how individual freedoms can clash against other people's individual freedoms is an any way exceptional. A key part of government, citizenry and society is how we regulate and control individual freedoms to make society work. That's why so many of these areas are regulated and why we accept it. When the citizenry doesn't accept it the the social contract fails.

I'm genuinely interested in what I'm missing here.

Rishi Sunak caught mocking transgender people in front of the 1922 committee.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ke-to-tory-mps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I'm actually staggered that anyone would find the point about how individual freedoms can clash against other people's individual freedoms is an any way exceptional. A key part of government, citizenry and society is how we regulate and control individual freedoms to make society work. That's why so many of these areas are regulated and why we accept it. When the citizenry doesn't accept it the the social contract fails.

I'm genuinely interested in what I'm missing here.

---

You're not missing anything, in fact you've made my point quite well. I guess it boils down in this case to who feels who is being denied individual freedom.

It's not the 50s the vast majority don't care who trans people sleep with, marry or wear. The only discussion is how we can give trans people every right without losing any hard gotten rights of biological women. Trying to stear it away from just the discussion on they small nuances is ridiculous.

Almost all on here agree trans women shouldn't play professional female sports, to some that would make us horrible transphobes, obviously to the vast majority that's nonsense.

Female prisons is obviously another that blew up. Yes we want trans to have every right they can, but sorry biological females must be protected there.

Unfortunately one group wants trans to have every right whether they effect women and the other side won't budge from wanting a few caveats, so we're stuck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-C

The guy was wearing a dress, was he trans or just a gay guy wearing a dress? sometimes we need to look at these people as simply humans doing what they feel is natural and get on with our own lives. If a man is portraying as a woman and he gets grief in the street, that would be homophobia, whether he had a wig on or not.

---

I'm reminded of the Kevin Rowland reply, "It's a mans dress."

https://youtube.com/watch?v=r54fZikFOu8&feature=share8

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

I'm reminded of the Kevin Rowland reply, "It's a mans dress."

https://youtube.com/watch?v=r54fZikFOu8&feature=share8

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

I see your Kevin Rowland and raise you...David Bowie!


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/51/65...e7c6035700.jpg

Unfair Play: The Battle for Women’s Sport by Sharron Davies review — women are being cheated of medals (thetimes.co.uk)

Davies certainly knows what she's talking about. Cheated out of gold by one of the testosterone-fuelled East Germans of that era, who essentially enjoyed the advantages biological males are now bringing to 'women's' sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

It's not the 50s the vast majority don't care who trans people sleep with, marry or wear. The only discussion is how we can give trans people every right without losing any hard gotten rights of biological women. Trying to stear it away from just the discussion on they small nuances is ridiculous.

Almost all on here agree trans women shouldn't play professional female sports, to some that would make us horrible transphobes, obviously to the vast majority that's nonsense.

Female prisons is obviously another that blew up. Yes we want trans to have every right they can, but sorry biological females must be protected there.

Unfortunately one group wants trans to have every right whether they effect women and the other side won't budge from wanting a few caveats, so we're stuck

---

This is 100% the issue. I, and most tolerant people couldn’t give a crap what other people do and have no issues whatsoever with people choosing to be trans.

The big problem here is that women’s rights, safety and privacy are potentially at risk and if woman don’t want someone born a man sharing a changing room then they should be fully entitled to that right.

Also the decisions (mainly in certain American states) allowing children to transition are completely irresponsible. In a country where you can’t drink until your 21 it is insane that irreversible life changing (and life ruining if you later regret it) changes are happening and being almost encouraged by a very vocal minority.

In Scotland we have (wrongly IMO) decided that until you are 25 you are not fully matured and therefore receive much more lenient sentencing at court.

This popped up on my twitter a few days ago.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12209919/amp/Full-audio-Student-rejected-classmates-claim-shes-CAT-scolded-teacher.html

Kids being scolded by a teacher, called despicable and told that they should find a new school for disagreeing that it is normal that their classmate identifies as a cat. The kids come over pretty reasonable and mature in the recording whereas the teacher is very stubborn.

Where do we draw the line? I’m all for people doing what makes them happy but a young teenager identifying as an animal probably needs a lot of help rather than endorsement and encouragement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul1642

Where do we draw the line? I’m all for people doing what makes them happy but a young teenager identifying as an animal probably needs a lot of help rather than endorsement and encouragement.

---

Do you even have the full context behind this? Perhaps the kid was just messing around, using their imagination. As kids do. The teacher dealt with that conversation poorly. But we don't know absolutely everything that led up to that conversation in the first place. Perhaps the children in that clip were bullying or belittling those who felt unsure about their gender identity, which is not ok either. Unprofessional from the teacher, but you have to wonder what part those kids parents play in their mindset to think that it's ok to single out other people and claim that they're somehow mentally ill, just because they're going through something that they can't fully comprehend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul1642

This popped up on my twitter a few days ago.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12209919/amp/Full-audio-Student-rejected-classmates-claim-shes-CAT-scolded-teacher.html

Kids being scolded by a teacher, called despicable and told that they should find a new school for disagreeing that it is normal that their classmate identifies as a cat. The kids come over pretty reasonable and mature in the recording whereas the teacher is very stubborn.

Where do we draw the line? I’m all for people doing what makes them happy but a young teenager identifying as an animal probably needs a lot of help rather than endorsement and encouragement.

---

And yet in this article, and others, no classmate identified as a cat. The young girl said something along the lines that if someone identified as a cat, that would be crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Unfair Play: The Battle for Women’s Sport by Sharron Davies review — women are being cheated of medals (thetimes.co.uk)

Davies certainly knows what she's talking about. Cheated out of gold by one of the testosterone-fuelled East Germans of that era, who essentially enjoyed the advantages biological males are now bringing to 'women's' sport.

---

Guess you missed this from a year ago.

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jun/19/transgender-swimmers-barred-from-female-competitions-after-fina-vote?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAg M%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16872685511738&ref errer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https% 3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fsport%2F2022%2Fjun%2 F19%2Ftransgender-swimmers-barred-from-female-competitions-after-fina-vote

I'm reposting this as it seems to have been missed by most.


https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Guess you missed this from a year ago.

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampp...fter-fina-vote

---

I didn't miss it, but that's not the issue. The link I posted is a review of her new book (out this week) where she recounts that disgraceful Olympic experience (the East German's gold has still not been rescinded) and the point being made is that those claiming a ban on trans women taking part in women's sports categories is transphobic are choosing to ignore the absurd and destructive advantage they enjoy as biological males.

The abuse Davies has taken (and the loss of the majority of her work) since sticking her head above the parapet on this is outrageous.

Interesting.....


https://gayexpress.co.nz/2023/06/wor...-over-cis-man/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Interesting.....


https://gayexpress.co.nz/2023/06/wor...-over-cis-man/

---

Not really. If you enjoy boxing you won't really look at the first 8 fights as they are exhibition in all but name. Your not a fan of biology if you think this is going to continue

Boxing has been generally good in banning biological males from smashing females. Unfortunately mma not so. Fallon fox born a male broke her opponents skull, sick imo

Not sure whether this belongs here, or in the Tory-bashing thread.

Whatever, it's your Friday funny :greengrin

https://twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/s...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Not sure whether this belongs here, or in the Tory-bashing thread.

Whatever, it's your Friday funny :greengrin

https://twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/s...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

---

Love this reply!

https://twitter.com/Mckendrick36/sta...TYdM0KLeQ&s=19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

Love this reply!

https://twitter.com/Mckendrick36/sta...TYdM0KLeQ&s=19

---

Helen Joyce explains very well why gender ideology is nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-ysKQrRMMU

I got a letter from the NHS last week with my name as 'Miss Keith Mc.....'


I blame Nicola Sturgeon!


:grr:

Maya Forstater: Woman gets payout for discrimination over trans tweets - BBC News

The number of people who said they were not the same gender as their birth sex amounted to 0.5% of the population that responded, lower than polling by Ipsos last summer in which 3.1% of people said they were trans, non-binary, gender queer or gender fluid, a gender or another gender that was not male or female.

The tally is, however, similar to Canada, which in 2021 became the first country to apply a census to its transgender and non-binary population aged 15 and over, which found they made up 0.33% of the population.

The England and Wales census also recorded sexuality for the first time, with 1.5 million people aged over 15 – or 3.2% – identifying as gay or lesbian, bisexual or other sexual orientation. The charity Stonewall, which has long called for the inclusion of gender and sexual identity questions, described the results as “a historic step”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...for-first-time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

The number of people who said they were not the same gender as their birth sex amounted to 0.5% of the population that responded, lower than polling by Ipsos last summer in which 3.1% of people said they were trans, non-binary, gender queer or gender fluid, a gender or another gender that was not male or female.

The tally is, however, similar to Canada, which in 2021 became the first country to apply a census to its transgender and non-binary population aged 15 and over, which found they made up 0.33% of the population.

The England and Wales census also recorded sexuality for the first time, with 1.5 million people aged over 15 – or 3.2% – identifying as gay or lesbian, bisexual or other sexual orientation. The charity Stonewall, which has long called for the inclusion of gender and sexual identity questions, described the results as “a historic step”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...for-first-time

---

Not everyone will like the author, but this piece explores the isue that some people had understanding the question https://unherd.com/2023/04/how-the-t...ooled-britain/

https://archive.is/KRY73

Bloody SNP.[emoji35]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://archive.is/KRY73

Bloody SNP.[emoji35]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Beast should go to a male prison

Trans charity Mermaids loses challenge against LGB Alliance - BBC News

Common sense prevails.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-fife-66542300

I'm surprised the original venues were able to cancel his show based on the precedent Joanna Cherry set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-fife-66542300

I'm surprised the original venues were able to cancel his show based on the precedent Joanna Cherry set.

---

It's absolutely mental . Who would have thought that free speech would be so viciously attacked in 21st century Scotland , at the Festival of all places .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...-fife-66542300

I'm surprised the original venues were able to cancel his show based on the precedent Joanna Cherry set.

---

I think Leith Arches is in for a tricky time. Their statement really damned them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think Leith Arches is in for a tricky time. Their statement really damned them.

---

Cherry's threat of legal action saw the Stand beat a hasty retreat (tho we still saw absurd security measures having to be put in place for her show). I'm wondering whether Linehan considered similar against Leith Arches. Maybe that could still come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Cherry's threat of legal action saw the Stand beat a hasty retreat (tho we still saw absurd security measures having to be put in place for her show). I'm wondering whether Linehan considered similar against Leith Arches. Maybe that could still come.

---

There's chat about it. TBH I think there was an element of trap about the booking that the venue walked smack into. In some ways I hope there isn't legal action because I suspect they don't have the resources. The Stand did, but saw sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

There's chat about it. TBH I think there was an element of trap about the booking that the venue walked smack into. In some ways I hope there isn't legal action because I suspect they don't have the resources. The Stand did, but saw sense.

---

Both cases, the venue was booked by third parties. It only became apparent later on who the 'acts' were. I think in both cases the 'agents' knew what they were doing by not naming who was to appear until after the booking was confirmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Both cases, the venue was booked by third parties. It only became apparent later on who the 'acts' were. I think in both cases the 'agents' knew what they were doing by not naming who was to appear until after the booking was confirmed.

---

I think you are right, though it wouldn't take a phd to work it out. I think the organisers knew there was a chance this would happen and the venue put their foot in the bear trap .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Both cases, the venue was booked by third parties. It only became apparent later on who the 'acts' were. I think in both cases the 'agents' knew what they were doing by not naming who was to appear until after the booking was confirmed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think you are right, though it wouldn't take a phd to work it out. I think the organisers knew there was a chance this would happen and the venue put their foot in the bear trap .

---

It's Fringe time. This was all about marketing, and Andrew Doyle has played a blinder here. Of course he knew what he was doing, with the "mystery act" and the "reveal" thereof.

At the end of the day, everyone can claim a wee win:-

The venue (and I'm not sure there was ever more than 1) has satisfied their own integrity.

The punters (100 of them?) got their show.

The extremists got a chance to snarl at each other for a bit.

Linehan got a wee boost to his flagging career.

Comedy Unleashed got some PR for their upcoming London gigs.

Doyle got something to chat about on GB News.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's Fringe time. This was all about marketing, and Andrew Doyle has played a blinder here. Of course he knew what he was doing, with the "mystery act" and the "reveal" thereof.

At the end of the day, everyone can claim a wee win:-

The venue (and I'm not sure there was ever more than 1) has satisfied their own integrity.

The punters (100 of them?) got their show.

The extremists got a chance to snarl at each other for a bit.

Linehan got a wee boost to his flagging career.

Comedy Unleashed got some PR for their upcoming London gigs.

Doyle got something to chat about on GB News.

---

I agree mostly, but the venue has exposure if legal action was pursued. I'm not sure they will be sued given the wider background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I agree mostly, but the venue has exposure if legal action was pursued. I'm not sure they will be sued given the wider background.

---

I'm not sure what they would be sued for. There's no loss of earnings , other than perhaps for the venue itself.

Besides, Linehan keeps telling us he has no money. (insert grinny smiley)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm not sure what they would be sued for. There's no loss of earnings , other than perhaps for the venue itself.

Besides, Linehan keeps telling us he has no money. (insert grinny smiley)

---

The statement they put out about 'values' was really ill advised. There's been a number of cases recently that have cost venues. That's one of the reasons the Stand folded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm not sure what they would be sued for. There's no loss of earnings , other than perhaps for the venue itself.

Besides, Linehan keeps telling us he has no money. (insert grinny smiley)

---

IIRC Cherry's threatened legal action against the Stand was based on their cancelling of her show being unlawful and discriminatory. Her view, like Linehan's (and the overwhelming majority of the population), that sex is immutable is legally protected. Linehan could presumably have mounted a challenge on similar grounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

IIRC Cherry's threatened legal action against the Stand was based on their cancelling of her show being unlawful and discriminatory. Her view, like Linehan's (and the overwhelming majority of the population), that sex is immutable is legally protected. Linehan could presumably have mounted a challenge on similar grounds.

---

Is Linehan’s view that people showing support for Trans people are “abusive groomers”that "almost every trans figure is a nonce" and view about the Trans movement that "it's a pedophilic movement. It has to be destroyed." legally protected?

Linehan is a horrible man, who bullies and harasses those he disagrees with then hides behind he’s doing it cause of “GC views” when challenged.

There’s plenty difference between him and Cherry that I don’t think it’s as straightforward as she won so so will he

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElginHibbie

Is Linehan’s view that people showing support for Trans people are “abusive groomers”that "almost every trans figure is a nonce" and view about the Trans movement that "it's a pedophilic movement. It has to be destroyed." legally protected?

Linehan is a horrible man, who bullies and harasses those he disagrees with then hides behind he’s doing it cause of “GC views” when challenged.

There’s plenty difference between him and Cherry that I don’t think it’s as straightforward as she won so so will he

---

That's what I pick up from him. Fair enough you are allowed your views but the manner and the content of some of the stuff he publishes is hugely insulting and way over the top.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElginHibbie

Is Linehan’s view that people showing support for Trans people are “abusive groomers”that "almost every trans figure is a nonce" and view about the Trans movement that "it's a pedophilic movement. It has to be destroyed." legally protected?

Linehan is a horrible man, who bullies and harasses those he disagrees with then hides behind he’s doing it cause of “GC views” when challenged.

There’s plenty difference between him and Cherry that I don’t think it’s as straightforward as she won so so will he

---

No case is straightforward and there is definitely a difference in tone between the two. This is a summary of the case law that supported Cherry that could apply https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1655894725231083520

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElginHibbie

Is Linehan’s view that people showing support for Trans people are “abusive groomers”that "almost every trans figure is a nonce" and view about the Trans movement that "it's a pedophilic movement. It has to be destroyed." legally protected?

Linehan is a horrible man, who bullies and harasses those he disagrees with then hides behind he’s doing it cause of “GC views” when challenged.

There’s plenty difference between him and Cherry that I don’t think it’s as straightforward as she won so so will he

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

No case is straightforward and there is definitely a difference in tone between the two. This is a summary of the case law that supported Cherry that could apply https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/st...94725231083520

---

I am no lawyer, but it's a fairly basic principle that for damages to apply, there almost always has to be loss.

Cherry would have lost out, financially, had the show not gone ahead. Linehan (and the others on the bill, who have largely been forgotten about..... again, that PR thing) haven't lost out. The gig went ahead.

There's no reputational loss either. Depending on where you sit, he's either a hero or a devil. His reputation hasn't been affected by this latest episode, merely reinforced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I am no lawyer, but it's a fairly basic principle that for damages to apply, there almost always has to be loss.

Cherry would have lost out, financially, had the show not gone ahead. Linehan (and the others on the bill, who have largely been forgotten about..... again, that PR thing) haven't lost out. The gig went ahead.

There's no reputational loss either. Depending on where you sit, he's either a hero or a devil. His reputation hasn't been affected by this latest episode, merely reinforced.

---

The legal issue isn't loss - it's discrimination. Julie Bindel won a case against Nottingham Libraries who cancelled a talk on violence against women because of her views on trans issues. Result - damages and apology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

The legal issue isn't loss - it's discrimination. Julie Bindel won a case against Nottingham Libraries who cancelled a talk on violence against women because of her views on trans issues. Result - damages and apology.

---

How were the damages calculated, though?

"The council has also offered to pay Miss Bindel, Nottingham Women for Change and ticket holders in respect to any losses occurred as a result of the cancellation."

So, probably, ticket costs, appearance fee, travel costs and legal costs.

None of these apply in the Linehan case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

How were the damages calculated, though?

"The council has also offered to pay Miss Bindel, Nottingham Women for Change and ticket holders in respect to any losses occurred as a result of the cancellation."

So, probably, ticket costs, appearance fee, travel costs and legal costs.

None of these apply in the Linehan case.

---

I'm not sure that these wouldn't apply in the Linehan case. But the key win for Bindel wasn't the money. It was the apology and the acknowledgement of discrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I'm not sure that these wouldn't apply in the Linehan case. But the key win for Bindel wasn't the money. It was the apology and the acknowledgement of discrimination.

---

(hate the fact that we can't bold things :)

I can't see that there was any loss (financial or otherwise) to anyone in this case. If anything, as I've said, Andrew Doyle "won".

I do agree with your last sentence. But I'm not sure that is where they'll go. Point made, PR outcomes achieved...... on to the next battle ground at the gigs in London.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

No case is straightforward and there is definitely a difference in tone between the two. This is a summary of the case law that supported Cherry that could apply https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/st...94725231083520

---

It's not a difference in tone, it's a difference in content. I don't think Cherry has said they are all groomers using a different tone.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

(hate the fact that we can't bold things :)

I can't see that there was any loss (financial or otherwise) to anyone in this case. If anything, as I've said, Andrew Doyle "won".

I do agree with your last sentence. But I'm not sure that is where they'll go. Point made, PR outcomes achieved...... on to the next battle ground at the gigs in London.

---

I think it isn't just about comedy. Julie Bindel was talking about violence against women. There's a general principle on what basis can venues refuse bookings because of the 'values' of someone making the booking. This gets a sharp legal focus when there is a protected characteristic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

It's not a difference in tone, it's a difference in content. I don't think Cherry has said they are all groomers using a different tone.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

I mean you can argue the difference, but the reality is that the venue cancelled him because it went against their 'values'. Specifically Linehan. It doesn't appear to be tone or content, but his activism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I mean you can argue the difference, but the reality is that the venue cancelled him because it went against their 'values'. Specifically Linehan. It doesn't appear to be tone or content, but his activism.

---

That's one interpretation.


He values abusing a whole group of people with accusations that are wholly unwarranted. He does it again and again so it must be of value to him.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think it isn't just about comedy. Julie Bindel was talking about violence against women. There's a general principle on what basis can venues refuse bookings because of the 'values' of someone making the booking. This gets a sharp legal focus when there is a protected characteristic.

---

Graham Linehan, believes that a person with a ***** is male, that there is no such thing as her ***** and that the only pronoun that can go before ***** is his, I,e Graham Linehan believes in the reality of biological sex.

Believing in the reality biological sex is a protected point of view, if you cancel someone because they have an opinion then this is discrimination. Two venues cancelled Graham Linehan because a small group of activists from the trans lobby emailed the venues, when It was announced that Graham Linehan had a 10 minute set and the venues capitulated, this brings shame on the Edinburgh Festival, because it shows that there is only one view you are allowed to have. Its group think.

Graham Linehan will be able to sue the venues if he can show that they cancelled him because he believes in the reality of biological sex.

Scottish government abandons court case over gender law veto https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67773606

And that’s that. I suspect Yousaf will be secretly pleased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Scottish government abandons court case over gender law veto https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67773606

And that’s that. I suspect Yousaf will be secretly pleased.

---

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/welsh-government-plan-make-easier-26174624

Meanwhile, in Wales.

https://cass.independent-review.uk/w...Accessible.pdf

There’s plenty politicians, celebrities etc wishing they hadn’t backed the wrong horse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee

https://cass.independent-review.uk/w...Accessible.pdf

There’s plenty politicians, celebrities etc wishing they hadn’t backed the wrong horse.

---

Did you post the wrong link? That's from February 2022.

The final report has been published recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That's from February 2022.

---

https://archive.ph/LtF3L

Rundown on the salient points. It's absolutely damming for the likes of stonewall and clinics like Tavistock. Thankfully Scot Gov has paused blocking children's puberty without looking at the effects, I fear they would be facing much litigation in the future if they didn't listen to the report.

Patrick Harvey has made a fool of himself saying he's not read the report but has read stuff against it. He's going against the science just like climate denialists he fights against. Why would the greens be so determined to give puberty blockers to children when the first major report says it should be paused. Thankfully the Scottish chief medical officer has already halted it at Sandyford

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

https://archive.ph/LtF3L

Rundown on the salient points. It's absolutely damming for the likes of stonewall and clinics like Tavistock. Thankfully Scot Gov has paused blocking children's puberty without looking at the effects, I fear they would be facing much litigation in the future if they didn't listen to the report.

Patrick Harvey has made a fool of himself saying he's not read the report but has read stuff against it. He's going against the science just like climate denialists he fights against. Why would the greens be so determined to give puberty blockers to children when the first major report says it should be paused. Thankfully the Scottish chief medical officer has already halted it at Sandyford

---

They didn't , it was a clinical decision taken by the health board. There had been silence from SNP Ministers. I see they have made what amounts to a holding statement now though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Did you post the wrong link? That's from February 2022.

The final report has been published recently.

---

Apologies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

https://archive.ph/LtF3L

Rundown on the salient points. It's absolutely damming for the likes of stonewall and clinics like Tavistock. Thankfully Scot Gov has paused blocking children's puberty without looking at the effects, I fear they would be facing much litigation in the future if they didn't listen to the report.

Patrick Harvey has made a fool of himself saying he's not read the report but has read stuff against it. He's going against the science just like climate denialists he fights against. Why would the greens be so determined to give puberty blockers to children when the first major report says it should be paused. Thankfully the Scottish chief medical officer has already halted it at Sandyford

---

Patrick Harvie making a fool of himself!?! Whatever next [emoji2957]

I see he’s threatening to quit as leader if they vote to leave the power sharing agreement…

Seems a rather odd party the Greens with a seemingly quite powerful ‘rainbow greens’ faction that seem to use the party as a vehicle for their rather specialist agendas.

https://cass.independent-review.uk/w...view_Final.pdf

Correct link to the final report.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

Patrick Harvie making a fool of himself!?! Whatever next [emoji2957]

I see he’s threatening to quit as leader if they vote to leave the power sharing agreement…

Seems a rather odd party the Greens with a seemingly quite powerful ‘rainbow greens’ faction that seem to use the party as a vehicle for their rather specialist agendas.

---

The Greens' reaction to the Cass Review into children's gender clinics was the final straw for the SNP. Harvie simply refused to accept its conclusions. This was part of a pattern. Leading Green MSP Ross Green publicly challenged the methodology used by Dr Hillary Cass, the Green Party's LGBTQ+ group, the Rainbow Greens, called the Cass Review a murder charter when the Sandyford, Scotland's youth gender clinic, announced that it would no longer prescribe puberty blockers in response to Cass's finding that they are unsafe and ineffective, the Greens condemned the decision, making the Greens look like flat earthers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeSloan

Patrick Harvie making a fool of himself!?! Whatever next [emoji2957]

I see he’s threatening to quit as leader if they vote to leave the power sharing agreement…

Seems a rather odd party the Greens with a seemingly quite powerful ‘rainbow greens’ faction that seem to use the party as a vehicle for their rather specialist agendas.

---

It's an old story isn't it. There's always been activists with differing agendas who are able to work there way into positions of influence in any party. I remember joining the Labour Party as a laddie, c 1980. The Labour Party Young Socialists movement was in effect a recruiting ground for the Militant Tendency. Hindsight tells me that Militant had an agenda that didn't really align with the wider party, nor did it reflects the wishes of the Labour supporting electorate. Nonetheless, Militant had a big influence on MP's, the Trade Union movement and ultimately the conflict created by the extreme left made Labour unelectable for nearly a generation.

The Green movement is older and much a more important issue than the radicalised agenda of Harvie and his cabal. He will hopefully become a footnote in the Scottish Green movement's history before long. A missed opportunity to influence a Green agenda with the focus on rights that were divisive, already in situ and of little interest to the wider public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

It's an old story isn't it. There's always been activists with differing agendas who are able to work there way into positions of influence in any party. I remember joining the Labour Party as a laddie, c 1980. The Labour Party Young Socialists movement was in effect a recruiting ground for the Militant Tendency. Hindsight tells me that Militant had an agenda that didn't really align with the wider party, nor did it reflects the wishes of the Labour supporting electorate. Nonetheless, Militant had a big influence on MP's, the Trade Union movement and ultimately the conflict created by the extreme left made Labour unelectable for nearly a generation.

The Green movement is older and much a more important issue than the radicalised agenda of Harvie and his cabal. He will hopefully become a footnote in the Scottish Green movement's history before long. A missed opportunity to influence a more radical Green agenda with the focus on rights that were divisive, already in situ and of little interest to the wider public.

---

It must be a first when they end up taking over and influencing another party as well though. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

The Greens' reaction to the Cass Review into children's gender clinics was the final straw for the SNP. Harvie simply refused to accept its conclusions. This was part of a pattern. Leading Green MSP Ross Green publicly challenged the methodology used by Dr Hillary Cass, the Green Party's LGBTQ+ group, the Rainbow Greens, called the Cass Review a murder charter when the Sandyford, Scotland's youth gender clinic, announced that it would no longer prescribe puberty blockers in response to Cass's finding that they are unsafe and ineffective, the Greens condemned the decision, making the Greens look like flat earthers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

It's an old story isn't it. There's always been activists with differing agendas who are able to work there way into positions of influence in any party. I remember joining the Labour Party as a laddie, c 1980. The Labour Party Young Socialists movement was in effect a recruiting ground for the Militant Tendency. Hindsight tells me that Militant had an agenda that didn't really align with the wider party, nor did it reflects the wishes of the Labour supporting electorate. Nonetheless, Militant had a big influence on MP's, the Trade Union movement and ultimately the conflict created by the extreme left made Labour unelectable for nearly a generation.

The Green movement is older and much a more important issue than the radicalised agenda of Harvie and his cabal. He will hopefully become a footnote in the Scottish Green movement's history before long. A missed opportunity to influence a more radical Green agenda with the focus on rights that were divisive, already in situ and of little interest to the wider public.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

It must be a first when they end up taking over and influencing another party as well though. :greengrin

---

IMO the trans rights debate should never have been a party political one. By doing so, it has polarised and radicalised what should have been an incremental societal shift and human-rights based progression, similar to the LGB experience.

Time will tell of course, but the party political aspect has definitely undermined political support for some parties, and has perhaps set the moderate progression of trans rights back quite a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

IMO the trans rights debate should never have been a party political one. By doing so, it has polarised and radicalised what should have been an incremental societal shift and human-rights based progression, similar to the LGB experience.

Time will tell of course, but the party political aspect has definitely undermined political support for some parties, and has perhaps set the moderate progression of trans rights back quite a bit.

---

:agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

IMO the trans rights debate should never have been a party political one. By doing so, it has polarised and radicalised what should have been an incremental societal shift and human-rights based progression, similar to the LGB experience.

Time will tell of course, but the party political aspect has definitely undermined political support for some parties, and has perhaps set the moderate progression of trans rights back quite a bit.

---

https://cass.independent-review.uk/w...Accessible.pdf

The most common reaction from cheerleaders of trans ideology has been to meekly plead ignorance. Dr Hillary Cass's report into the NHS's treatment of gender-confused kids has radically transformed the trans debate, exposing 'gender-affirming care' as a dangerous experiment. Now, the disciples of trans ideology are scrambling to save face.

The fact is, it is incredibly difficult for trans activists to obscure their roles in this scandal. Cass's report reveals what was really going on inside the NHS's Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). She concludes that the 'gender affirming ' medical treatments it provided, like puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, are based on 'wholly inadequate' evidence.

Doctors are usually cautious when adopting new treatments, but Cass says 'quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children'. Instead, thousands of children were put on an unproven medical pathway. Worse still, medical professionals seemed largely uninterested in uncovering the side effects and long-term risks of these drugs.

It truly is a scandal that children and youngsters were put on a pathway to medicalisation and then promptly abandoned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

The most common reaction from cheerleaders of trans ideology has been to meekly plead ignorance. Dr Hillary Cass's report into the NHS's treatment of gender-confused kids has radically transformed the trans debate, exposing 'gender-affirming care' as a dangerous experiment. Now, the disciples of trans ideology are scrambling to save face.

The fact is, it is incredibly difficult for trans activists to obscure their roles in this scandal. Cass's report reveals what was really going on inside the NHS's Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). She concludes that the 'gender affirming ' medical treatments it provided, like puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, are based on 'wholly inadequate' evidence.

Doctors are usually cautious when adopting new treatments, but Cass says 'quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children'. Instead, thousands of children were put on an unproven medical pathway. Worse still, medical professionals seemed largely uninterested in uncovering the side effects and long-term risks of these drugs.

It truly is a scandal that children and youngsters were put on a pathway to medicalisation and then promptly abandoned.

---

Not sure how this addresses my point. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

IMO the trans rights debate should never have been a party political one. By doing so, it has polarised and radicalised what should have been an incremental societal shift and human-rights based progression, similar to the LGB experience.

Time will tell of course, but the party political aspect has definitely undermined political support for some parties, and has perhaps set the moderate progression of trans rights back quite a bit.

---

:agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

IMO the trans rights debate should never have been a party political one. By doing so, it has polarised and radicalised what should have been an incremental societal shift and human-rights based progression, similar to the LGB experience.

Time will tell of course, but the party political aspect has definitely undermined political support for some parties, and has perhaps set the moderate progression of trans rights back quite a bit.

---

The debate will be polarised until there's agreement on both sides regarding the material reality of sex and gender. There is no shared reality viewed from different points of view, there are two contrary realities. In one reality sex is measurable and definable, in the other these measures and definitions are discarded for personal experience and belief.

This issue of shared reality pervades politics and society on a wider scale, from MAGA alternative facts, to religious extremism. With each of these sections of society building their own online bubbles where those realities are nurtured , I see little hope for reconciliation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 500miles

The debate will be polarised until there's agreement on both sides regarding the material reality of sex and gender. There is no shared reality viewed from different points of view, there are two contrary realities. In one reality sex is measurable and definable, in the other these measures and definitions are discarded for personal experience and belief.

This issue of shared reality pervades politics and society on a wider scale, from MAGA alternative facts, to religious extremism. With each of these sections of society building their own online bubbles where those realities are nurtured , I see little hope for reconciliation.

---

All very true as society stands today.

But, as many have pointed out, there are so many parallels with the LGB movement. A generation or so ago, that debate was also polarised. The idea of same-sex marriage was so far off the radar then as to be unthinkable, even within the gay community. Gay men were often demonised as potential child abusers; parents had misgivings about their kids being taught by gay men and women. Nowadays, our kids ask "why was there even a debate?".

The progress that has been made on LGB rights has partly come about by campaigning and what some would call extremism. But the biggest factor has been through society becoming more comfortable and tolerant of "difference". People have gay friends, kids, colleagues, which has largely taken the sting out of the previous debate. It's only relatively recently that politicians have become involved to reinforce, through legislation, what society had already accepted.

What you describe as the "online bubbles" is true, of course. There seems to be no place online for nuance and compromise. But that isn't everyone's reality. As general society becomes more exposed to, and comfortable, with trans friends, family, colleagues etc. , that's where the toxicity will fade away, just as it did with LGB rights. There will always be extremists, of course, but they will be the exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

All very true as society stands today.

But, as many have pointed out, there are so many parallels with the LGB movement. A generation or so ago, that debate was also polarised. The idea of same-sex marriage was so far off the radar then as to be unthinkable, even within the gay community. Gay men were often demonised as potential child abusers; parents had misgivings about their kids being taught by gay men and women. Nowadays, our kids ask "why was there even a debate?".

The progress that has been made on LGB rights has partly come about by campaigning and what some would call extremism. But the biggest factor has been through society becoming more comfortable and tolerant of "difference". People have gay friends, kids, colleagues, which has largely taken the sting out of the previous debate. It's only relatively recently that politicians have become involved to reinforce, through legislation, what society had already accepted.

What you describe as the "online bubbles" is true, of course. There seems to be no place online for nuance and compromise. But that isn't everyone's reality. As general society becomes more exposed to, and comfortable, with trans friends, family, colleagues etc. , that's where the toxicity will fade away, just as it did with LGB rights. There will always be extremists, of course, but they will be the exception.

---

I'm not convinced it's the same. You can demonstrate Sexuality by behaviour. You can't really demonstrate gender. You can demonstrate sex by metric and definition.

As long as people are compelled to speak and behave according to a philosophy they don't believe in, you'll get strong pushback - and not just from one political or social section. It's really difficult to form a shared reality under those circumstances.

The compromise would have to be gender, like religion, is a protected characteristic, and sex is a separately protected characteristic. What you have to keep in mind however is that religion doesn't have the same degree of protection as others. I can go around saying how stupid religious people are with very little fear. I can't do that with other protected characteristics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 500miles

I'm not convinced it's the same. You can demonstrate Sexuality by behaviour. You can't really demonstrate gender. You can demonstrate sex by metric and definition.

As long as people are compelled to speak and behave according to a philosophy they don't believe in, you'll get strong pushback - and not just from one political or social section. It's really difficult to form a shared reality under those circumstances.

The compromise would have to be gender, like religion, is a protected characteristic, and sex is a separately protected characteristic. What you have to keep in mind however is that religion doesn't have the same degree of protection as others. I can go around saying how stupid religious people are with very little fear. I can't do that with other protected characteristics.

---

My sister in law works in the urology department of Great Ormond Street. She is in a fairly niche area and has treated kids born with one testicle and an internal urethra. Kids born with both testicles and ovaries. All sorts of complications.

The term intersex is well established. There isn’t necessarily a binary option. Often a decision is made about these children’s gender that turns out to be completely opposite to what they actually were. Sadly the suicide rate when they grow up is higher than the normal rate.

Look at Caster Semenya and her case.

“Semenya has said that she was born with a vagina and internal undescended testes; she has no uterus or fallopian tubes and does not menstruate. Her internal testes produce natural testosterone levels in the typical male range Semenya has rejected the label of "intersex", calling herself "a different kind of woman."

So if someone can physically be different, it’s not a massive leap of faith and science to say your brain can simply be in the wrong body, without having any outward signs of say having a testicle and a vagina, or the wrong chromosome makeup.

Just some food for thought.

J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

My sister in law works in the urology department of Great Ormond Street. She is in a fairly niche area and has treated kids born with one testicle and an internal urethra. Kids born with both testicles and ovaries. All sorts of complications.

The term intersex is well established. There isn’t necessarily a binary option. Often a decision is made about these children’s gender that turns out to be completely opposite to what they actually were. Sadly the suicide rate when they grow up is higher than the normal rate.

Look at Caster Semenya and her case.

“Semenya has said that she was born with a vagina and internal undescended testes; she has no uterus or fallopian tubes and does not menstruate. Her internal testes produce natural testosterone levels in the typical male range Semenya has rejected the label of "intersex", calling herself "a different kind of woman."

So if someone can physically be different, it’s not a massive leap of faith and science to say your brain can simply be in the wrong body, without having any outward signs of say having a testicle and a vagina, or the wrong chromosome makeup.

Just some food for thought.

J

---

My wife and I done IVF and as part of some private scans we had done, we were given a decent run through of intersex conditions as something that can be picked up. Intersex people can still be assessed (overwhelmingly, quite easily) as male or female based on gamate production. While I didn't memorise all the rarer forms of intersex conditions, I didn't come across one that existed outwith the binary. Sexual development can be complicated, it's results are still binary.

It's also something of a strawman in general, as we aren't talking about people who have measurable and definable conditions, we're talking about an idea of gender that people feel.

Semenya is an interesting case. Given the heavy rumours she was the sperms donor for her own children, a potential scandal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 500miles

My wife and I done IVF and as part of some private scans we had done, we were given a decent run through of intersex conditions as something that can be picked up. Intersex people can still be assessed (overwhelmingly, quite easily) as male or female based on gamate production. While I didn't memorise all the rarer forms of intersex conditions, I didn't come across one that existed outwith the binary. Sexual development can be complicated, it's results are still binary.

It's also something of a strawman in general, as we aren't talking about people who have measurable and definable conditions, we're talking about an idea of gender that people feel.

Semenya is an interesting case. Given the heavy rumours she was the sperms donor for her own children, a potential scandal.

---

Sorry, struggling a bit with this post. Are you saying there's only two sexes, male and female, and if you are, which of the two is Semenya?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Sorry, struggling a bit with this post. Are you saying there's only two sexes, male and female, and if you are, which of the two is Semenya?

---

Aye. That's not just based on my ivf experience I just brought that up because that was my first introduction to the concept, that's Dawkins position, etc.

Semenya has had children with her wife. The allegations are that she is actually an intersex male, and as such provided the sperm for the ivf, rather than a donor. Quite an unkind rumour to raise out of nowhere, but I think worth raising when Semenya is used as evidence as someone existing outside the binary.