I'll take it you didn't bother to read it then.LOL ! I was stating what my own post was (rude). not your shite ! Don't flatter yourself young man.
Explains a lot.
I'll take it you didn't bother to read it then.LOL ! I was stating what my own post was (rude). not your shite ! Don't flatter yourself young man.
It’s this type of stuff that I, personally, can’t get my head round.
“The only solution” makes it sound like having male and female toilets is a pressing issue world wide. Creating an issue out of nothing imo.
If, for some very odd reason in my opinion, you are neither a male nor a female, then take your pick. Or use the disabled one (if available), which is gender neutral after all.
Buck Angel is an advocate of having gender neutral bathrooms as well as single sex, where possible. That does seem to be the logical compromise.It's a question that needs answering though. If you make a all biological males use the men's toilet, or all biological females use the women's, someone will always be made uncomfortable.
What toilet should this man go into? He's a biological female with XX chromosomes and a vagina.
View attachment 4125
As an aside, it's really interesting how little the issue of trans men comes up in this debate.
Got a lot of time for Buck Angel. Had never heard about him until he came under fire from sectors of the left for not being a strong enough advocate for non-binary people.Buck Angel is an advocate of having gender neutral bathrooms as well as single sex, where possible. That does seem to be the logical compromise.
He is very outspoken against many trans activist demands - such as stating that transwomen should not compete in women's sport. Speaks a lot of sense, IMO.
The trans men one is interesting - partly because they are less likely to have an advantage in men's sports (many of which are actually open, not restricted to men), and partly because the dynamic is different.
Males are more likely to be sexual predators with a significant strength advantage - as I said above, we don't always realise how much we intimidate women.
Personally, if you are still pre-OP, then you stay in the changing room of your born gender.
0000long
I was going to make this exact post in response but decided I could be arsed dealing with the inevitable fallout from it.It’s a a very well structured point Brizzle. You ask a very pertinent question about what is the acceptable level of predatory men incidents arising from abuse of “trans right”?
Heaven knows how you can possibly put a number on it. But it’s not zero.
Some will recoil at that sentence, but I mean in the sense like asking what’s an acceptable level of road deaths? If you say “Less than 1” then you’ll have to ban vehicles.
Society has to make a call based on risk-benefit… then continually work to improve the benefit/risk ratio. The rights and acceptance of transgender people have rightly leapt forward in (very) recent times. But I too have real problems with self ID.
My gut feel is that if you want to have any rights associated with the ‘opposite’ gender, there needs to be robust formal process involved. Maybe there already is - I hear conflicting things and am not well versed.
I was going to make this exact post in response but decided I could be arsed dealing with the inevitable fallout from it.
You're a brave one, regardless.
I meant it in that it's a very logical and cold way of viewing a very emotional issue.That sort of comment is one that makes me read back and think “Oh hell, what have I said?”!
When I read your post, I honestly didn’t immediately compute what you meant. I am sure I do now - but if anyone disagrees with the non-zero number of “acceptable” victims, then I think they are not reading it in the context/sense I mean - and I am not sure I have the ability to write it any clearer!
It’s a a very well structured point Brizzle. You ask a very pertinent question about what is the acceptable level of predatory men incidents arising from abuse of “trans right”?
Heaven knows how you can possibly put a number on it. But it’s not zero.
Some will recoil at that sentence, but I mean in the sense like asking what’s an acceptable level of road deaths? If you say “Less than 1” then you’ll have to ban vehicles.
Society has to make a call based on risk-benefit… then continually work to improve the benefit/risk ratio. The rights and acceptance of transgender people have rightly leapt forward in (very) recent times. But I too have real problems with self ID.
My gut feel is that if you want to have any rights associated with the ‘opposite’ gender, there needs to be robust formal process involved. Maybe there already is - I hear conflicting things and am not well versed.
Think you were pretty clear with it and I get what you were saying - the same way that we don't bar men from becoming scout leaders, sports coaches, teachers, and priests because a few molest children.That sort of comment is one that makes me read back and think “Oh hell, what have I said?”!
When I read your post, I honestly didn’t immediately compute what you meant. I am sure I do now - but if anyone disagrees with the non-zero number of “acceptable” victims, then I think they are not reading it in the context/sense I mean - and I am not sure I have the ability to write it any clearer!
Sadly, the extremists are setting the debate. Some absolutely vile people on social media - a minority, of course, but very vocal.Got a lot of time for Buck Angel. Had never heard about him until he came under fire from sectors of the left for not being a strong enough advocate for non-binary people.
Speaks a lot of sense, definitely. The sort of lead voice the cause needs but seems to have been alienated for not being "pure" enough. Classic lefties.
Great response from the American weightlifter
I wonder what a biological woman who'd trained for years and got 4th place would say about that?
I've nothing against transgender people, but in sport it becomes a question of fairness.