Yes, lots of "common sense people" as they are commonly known. The same common sense people who would have had no problem with homosexuality being illegal comparatively recently. "No one should want to 'ave a dyck up their jacksie, stands to reason, dunnit?". The same people who would deny ADHD or autism diagnoses - "just naughty kids - give 'em a clip rand the earole, that'll sort 'em aht. stands to reason, dunnit?". "just a bit simple, ain't they - stick em in the retards school. Stands to reason."
No. Just been to the gym actually. I am exercised (geddit) about this because I know people personally affected, and I know how hard their lives are, how hard it has been for them to take the lifestyle decisions they are taking. And the Tories weaponising it is foul; it makes the lives of these people much harder and 'gives permission' to ****s to be open in their attacks both verbal and physical, just to secure the votes of a tiny minority who really give a **** about it. Why is this debate any different to the one that was had 50 years ago about homosexuality? Why does anyone have a problem with a troubled person living their life in the way that feels right to them? I can see the arguments about a fair playing field in sport and I would agree that anyone who has gone through puberty as a man should not be allowed to compete in women's sport. But the ******** about men 'pretending to be trans' in order to perv on women - it's such a tiny, tiny occurrence, and absolutely dwarfed by the number of non-trans men assaulting and abusing women; you wonder whether the anti-trans activists are motivated by something other than feminism, because their time could be much more effectively spent elsewhere. Why on earth, for example, does JK Rowling need to make a song and dance about it? Was she attacked by a man pretending to be a woman? I have no idea, but it seems such a peculiar thing to get worked up about otherwise.
I've always felt like this is a fundamentally dishonest argument because it's not trans women doing it, it's men. But then, men perv on boys in bathrooms too. How are we going to fix that? Ban all men from male bathrooms?
That fact that you don't agree with it doesn't make it ideology. But lets run with that thinking for a moment, putting aside all the scientific research, academic papers and positions of notable bodies such as the WHO. Serious question: in your estimation, why do women wear skirts in our society?
Well, possibly because it makes them feel empowered, just as women who wear trousers do so because it makes them feel empowered. If you’re arguing that they are doing so simply because of patriarchy then I would suggest that you are drastically understating the impact that feminism has had, even if there is still not full equality. At least, in the West. Clearly your original question isn’t appropriate to some societies.
No. The underlying point is that it is a societal norm for women to wear skirts, but it's not driven by physical biology so these concepts clearly come from elsewhere. That being the case, clearly there is a determining factor to "male" or "female" behavior etc. beyond physical sex organs.
A case in point about the BBC and how it misleads by omission so often. One of the panellists on tonight's Question Time is Inaya Folarin Iman, who has been introduced as a writer and broadcaster. What is not mentioned is that she stood for the Brexit Party in the 2019 general election and was a member of Toby Young's Free Speech Union. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with her being a panellist. But why is this sort of information so frequently omitted on BBC news and current affairs programmes. Now, you may see the joins @Keighley but I will guarantee you millions will not.
But was it not originally driven by the male sex drive? It’s not only the sexual organs which men find erotic. Possibly we are saying the same thing, I guess it depends what you mean by “physical biology”.
I wouldn't get too into the weeds on the concept of skirts. It's just one of many things I could have chosen to draw upon. The point is there are significant numbers of "male" and "female" associated things that are driven by nothing more than social conditioning, not the contents of our underpants or chromosome pairings.
I’m sure people sigh when I bang on about the Ruling Class, but its ability to endlessly fund its propaganda vessels to give their opinions through newspapers, think tanks and much much more and get them placed in every panel, is one of the key ways they mould a discourse which prevents any sort of Government or collective opposition emerging that might steer things in a way unfavourable to them. It should be made transparent to us. The BBC is currently part captive and not sufficiently fair or transparent. The sad thing is that those same opinion formers, who have so much going their way, can still convince the Country that the BBC is left wing, having nudged the Overton Window so far over.
Town bike? tut tut In my world gender is defined by someone’s sex. If the meaning of gender has now been rewritten to allow men who like to put on a frock and make-up to call themselves women, then fine. Crack on. Be my guest etc etc. A man who prefers to wear women’s clothes is perfectly ok by me. And, if you really must, go ahead and have your genitalia surgically removed and inject yourself with Christ knows what so that you grow a pair of ti ts, I really couldn’t give a damn. But please understand you are no more a woman than I would be a cat if I woke up one morning and started meowing and insisted that everyone start calling me Felix I’m sorry if my heresy upsets anyone, but there it is
Liked for your excellent use of working class dialect. Is this style based on 'Bert' the chimney sweep character in Mary Poppins played, of course, by **** van Dyke?
Bert appears all very lovable, but in the sequel he and Mary join UKIP. He’s an obvious wrong’un who spends most of the first film in ‘blackface.’
Actually based on Fingers and Dirty **** (AKA Mr Knuckles and Mr Lenin) in "5 Go Mad in Dorset". Go to 7:00 for example.
I was in Waitrose yesterday, the wokest supermarket with its nitrate-free bacon, and saw a couple in their 60s bimbling about. He had come back with a copy of the Mail on Sunday. She already had one in the trolley. "I've already got one, love," she said. "Oh well," he said, "we don't have to share if I get one as well." The Express is laughable. The Telegraphs is dangerous. "Shapps: Woke extremists are rife in the army" it yells today, loudly enough to wake its dwindling readership from their gentle snooze. What we need is a bloody good war! Young people today don't know what it means to stand up for your country. etc etc. Now look at the army, making the soldiers wear rainbow-coloured uniforms, no doubt. Letting women drive tanks. Dear me, when will someone please just have some common sense. The wider fact here is that for anyone under 40, the idea of sacrificing yourself for a country that has utterly broken the social contract is becoming unthinkable. And the more terrified the (mostly ageing) reactionary right get, the more of this sort of rubbish we'll see.
The media commentators of the right can be as anti-Muslim as they like it seems. And here was I thinking that they didn’t like the ‘sophisticated’ (AKA North London Elite) of the Labour Party either. This is a batshit slur, not least of all because it unilaterally decides that Muslims cannot be sophisticated but also because the Labour Party has tried very hard to demonstrate its support for the Jewish community, recently disappointing many Muslim supporters over Israel/Gaza.
I think people go to war to protect their loved ones from a perceived threat not for their sense of duty to their country. I am sure that in that respect the present generation will be no different to those before
Interesting. As I guy from a Labour Muslim group pointed put at last election 86% of the voting Muslim community voted Labour. They're now polling at 43% with 23% saying "don't know"?
Funny that the narrative is never that conservatives choose not to represent the Muslim vote in favour of another segment. But then we know how these arguments are pitched. Depressing that everyone is so easy to divide.
