Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...

What a complete numpty!!!

Haha...  But Tories do...it's generally found in the back, by the anus.  

So, what's the answer?


I've made this thread a poll.


So let's see what people think.

This is modern conservatism. Cost of live by crisis going on but they try to deflect by talking about willies and gender definitions.

No it's a serious issue in its own right that needs sorting out.


If you want to talk about the cost of living issue then start s thread on it and I'll be happy to post some comments there.


But on this thread I think you should stick to the topic...


So... What is your answer to the question....?

"...when it comes to gender, the left is against science or pure facts... A person with an X and a Y chromosome, that has a long, dangling penis, is scientifically a man, and that is pretty much, scientifically, the end of the story..."

Tommy Monk wrote:"...when it comes to gender, the left is against science or pure facts... A person with an X and a Y chromosome, that has a long, dangling penis, is scientifically a man, and that is pretty much, scientifically, the end of the story..."

I think Les has got you there, tom.  Of course, you can frame anything to mean anything by alluding to metaphor, or forumotion copy functions.

The real question is: are values science?  We can take any fact - as you say, "A person with a...penis..." - and call it a value - man or masculinity - but until nature (or god) speaks, it is just a fact: 'a person with a...penis..."

Of course, we are habituated to think "man" whenever a penis is brought up, but that is just habit.  It is not a pronouncement of nature or god.  It doesn't account for those - however many - who define themselves as "gay".  They are a fact, too.

Since values are man-made, a poll doesn't 'prove' anything.

You are exactly the type of looney tune lefty that the quote was about!

Tommy Monk wrote:You are exactly the type of looney tune lefty that the quote was about!

This thread is not about me.  Are you afraid to discuss the subject that you started?

No, a woman can't have a penis...unless there is a defect at birth that very occasionally muddles up the sex organs.
A person who's born a woman and then transgenders can have a penis, but then she is a male.

That's my simple answer.

Sorry... A man in a dress is not a woman... And a woman with an assortment of skin graft surgeries and a plastic set of balls implanted in her labia, is not a man.

Tommy Monk wrote:


Sorry... A man in a dress is not a woman... And a woman with an assortment of skin graft surgeries and a plastic set of balls implanted in her labia, is not a man.

Luckily, trans people don’t need validation from the likes of you.

If you legally define people by gender, your going to need to define it.

That's not to say science isn't advanced enough to transform people from one gender to another (Blaire White for example), but if we're going to acknowledge the transformation, we need to be able to define what it requires.

We use the word "transitioning" to describe the process.

We need to define when the transition is over and someone is transitioned.

Tommy Monk wrote:


Sorry... A man in a dress is not a woman... And a woman with an assortment of skin graft surgeries and a plastic set of balls implanted in her labia, is not a man.

A man in a dress is either a transvestite or a drag queen.

If someone goes through years of mental anguish, therapy, and numerous serious ops to enable them to become the person they believe they were born to be, ie, the opposite gender of which they were born into, once the transition is completed, that is the sex they now are.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Sorry... A man in a dress is not a woman... And a woman with an assortment of skin graft surgeries and a plastic set of balls implanted in her labia, is not a man.

A man in a dress is either a transvestite or a drag queen.

If someone goes through years of mental anguish, therapy, and numerous serious ops to enable them to become the person they believe they were born to be, ie, the opposite gender of which they were born into, once the transition is completed, that is the sex they now are.

Both you and MD raise xlnt points. Suppose government prohibited air travel, on the premise: If god intended man to fly he would have given him wings. The Moral-Naturalist argument, espoused by tommy, is very much like the old Church argument used to burn people at the stake. Copernicus, di Vinci and Galileo all had to hide their works because, essentially, they violated the natural interpretation of things.

There is no more reason to give moral credence to natural things and understandings, than there is to give moral credence to the inventions of man. In fact, because the latter serves mankind is the reason why we have airplanes, skyscrapers, automobiles and container ships. Indeed, a sex-change operation is no more sinful than a knee replacement operation.

Females have two X chromosomes, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.


Here in parts of the UK, a man with a penis can say he "feels' like he is a woman, and is then given the recognition of being a woman... When he is clearly a man with a penis.


This is complete madness!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:


Females have two X chromosomes, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.


Here in parts of the UK, a man with a penis can say he "feels' like he is a woman, and is then given the recognition of being a woman... When he is clearly a man with a penis.


This is complete madness!!!

I think if a man with a penis wants to feel like he is a horse, a genie, or a woman...he has that right...his feelings, his choice.

Personally, I don't think a man with a penis should be accepted as a woman till he has made the start on the long mental and physical journey of transgendering.

I do think there has to be understanding and compassion for both sides here though.

Tommy Monk wrote:Females have two X chromosomes, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.

Here in parts of the UK, a man with a penis can say he "feels' like he is a woman, and is then given the recognition of being a woman... When he is clearly a man with a penis.

So?  A man with a penis may relate to women, in which case he may be a gay man.  Likewise, a woman may relate to masculinity, and she may be a lesbian.  You are much smaller than the world and all it contains.  You are not entitled to challenge exceptions; just accept that nature has made exceptions to your rules.

After all, nature has made fish, which derive oxygen from water.  But nature has also made whales, being mammals who breath air and move about like fishes.  They look like a fish.  They swim like a fish.  But they are exceptions to the rule.

Who are you to question nature's exceptions?  Should we deny mammalian status to the whale merely because they don't fit someone's personal value structure - swimming instead of walking?

Tommy Monk wrote:


Females have two X chromosomes, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.


Here in parts of the UK, a man with a penis can say he "feels' like he is a woman, and is then given the recognition of being a woman... When he is clearly a man with a penis.


This is complete madness!!!

Despite Right Wing hysteria, this almost never happens (not saying never, but exceptionally rare).

Most rans people are genuine and either are going through transition, intend to, or in certain countries can't afford to but live their life entirely as the gender they identify with and are no danger whatsoever to the public (in fact the public are often more of a risk to them).

Right Wing whining about bearded men claiming to be women to enter lady's rooms is BS fearmongering, and dangerous to one of the most abused and vulnerable minorities in western nations.

^Quill, I appreciate you are supportive on this topic, but men with penis relating to women possibly being gay is a bit of an oversimplification. I don't relate to women at all, my interests are all (stereotypically) 'men's' domains (sports, videogames, fantasy nerd-dom lol). Trans and gay are not all that connected a lot of the time. Sadly a lot of gay conservatives choose to throw trans people under the bus now gay people are (mostly) treated equally in the UK.

PS: I've amended the question in the poll to reflect reality and therefore answered yes

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Females have two X chromosomes, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.


Here in parts of the UK, a man with a penis can say he "feels' like he is a woman, and is then given the recognition of being a woman... When he is clearly a man with a penis.


This is complete madness!!!

I think if a man with a penis wants to feel like he is a horse, a genie, or a woman...he has that right...his feelings, his choice.

Personally, I don't think a man with a penis should be accepted as a woman till he has made the start on the long mental and physical journey of transgendering.

I do think there has to be understanding and compassion for both sides here though.

No, it is a delusion, a form of mental illness.


And people should not be pandering to these delusions as it is actually encouraging the illness.


Normal men don't have delusions that they are a horse, or a genie, or a woman...

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Females have two X chromosomes, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.


Here in parts of the UK, a man with a penis can say he "feels' like he is a woman, and is then given the recognition of being a woman... When he is clearly a man with a penis.


This is complete madness!!!

Despite Right Wing hysteria, this almost never happens (not saying never, but exceptionally rare).

Most rans people are genuine and either are going through transition, intend to, or in certain countries can't afford to but live their life entirely as the gender they identify with and are no danger whatsoever to the public (in fact the public are often more of a risk to them).

Right Wing whining about bearded men claiming to be women to enter lady's rooms is BS fearmongering, and dangerous to one of the most abused and vulnerable minorities in western nations.

^Quill, I appreciate you are supportive on this topic, but men with penis relating to women possibly being gay is a bit of an oversimplification. I don't relate to women at all, my interests are all (stereotypically) 'men's' domains (sports, videogames, fantasy nerd-dom lol). Trans and gay are not all that connected a lot of the time. Sadly a lot of gay conservatives choose to throw trans people under the bus now gay people are (mostly) treated equally in the UK.

PS: I've amended the question in the poll to reflect reality and therefore answered yes

In what context/situation can a woman have a penis?


Surely you are of the belief that a woman who transitions to be a man and therefore has a skin graft based neo penis, and is then a man?


So how can any man with a genuine real penis be therefore classed as a woman, in any way?


Your answer to your edited version of my poll wuestion is absurd!!!





And I would appreciate it if admins didn't edit my posts or poll questions!


This is an abuse of free speech!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Females have two X chromosomes, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.


Here in parts of the UK, a man with a penis can say he "feels' like he is a woman, and is then given the recognition of being a woman... When he is clearly a man with a penis.


This is complete madness!!!

Despite Right Wing hysteria, this almost never happens (not saying never, but exceptionally rare).

Most rans people are genuine and either are going through transition, intend to, or in certain countries can't afford to but live their life entirely as the gender they identify with and are no danger whatsoever to the public (in fact the public are often more of a risk to them).

Right Wing whining about bearded men claiming to be women to enter lady's rooms is BS fearmongering, and dangerous to one of the most abused and vulnerable minorities in western nations.

^Quill, I appreciate you are supportive on this topic, but men with penis relating to women possibly being gay is a bit of an oversimplification. I don't relate to women at all, my interests are all (stereotypically) 'men's' domains (sports, videogames, fantasy nerd-dom lol). Trans and gay are not all that connected a lot of the time. Sadly a lot of gay conservatives choose to throw trans people under the bus now gay people are (mostly) treated equally in the UK.

PS: I've amended the question in the poll to reflect reality and therefore answered yes

In what context/situation can a woman have a penis?


Surely you are of the belief that a woman who transitions to be a man and therefore has a skin graft based neo penis, and is then a man?


So how can any man with a genuine real penis be therefore classed as a woman, in any way?


Your answer to your edited version of my poll wuestion is absurd!!!





And I would appreciate it if admins didn't edit my posts or poll questions!


This is an abuse of free speech!!!

No one is stopping your free speech, you are free to express any opinion you like.

To answer your question, if a trans woman has yet to go through the medical procedure to have the penis removed (perhaps due to lack of financial ability - not all countries have our opportunities), but otherwise presents themselves as feminine, then I would consider them a woman and they would have a penis.

But they are not women... They are men!!!


They are men in women's clothing!!!


And even if they have their tackle removed... They are still men but just without the tackle...

Les wrote:Quill, I appreciate you are supportive on this topic, but men with penis relating to women possibly being gay is a bit of an oversimplification. I don't relate to women at all, my interests are all (stereotypically) 'men's' domains (sports, videogames, fantasy nerd-dom lol). Trans and gay are not all that connected a lot of the time. Sadly a lot of gay conservatives choose to throw trans people under the bus now gay people are (mostly) treated equally in the UK.

I realized when I wrote down my thoughts on the subject, that they were not heavy on detail.  But my point was not to address complexities of the gay/trans world, but to address tom's simplistic dichotomy.  Tom is making an ethical-naturalist argument - that what is ‘nature’ is ‘better’ – a well-known fallacy in the philosophical world.  It has two flaws to it: (1) that the object is not at all natural, but our interpretation of natural, and thus essentially artifact (eg, the Ptolemaic system); and (2) why should the natural be preferred over artifact, anyway?

These are ethical questions, to be addressed before getting into the distinctions, or complexities of 'gayness' or 'trans' sexuality.  I'm not sure I fully comprehend the latter, anyway...so I’ll bow to your superior thoughts on that subject.

Original Quill wrote:

Les wrote:Quill, I appreciate you are supportive on this topic, but men with penis relating to women possibly being gay is a bit of an oversimplification. I don't relate to women at all, my interests are all (stereotypically) 'men's' domains (sports, videogames, fantasy nerd-dom lol). Trans and gay are not all that connected a lot of the time. Sadly a lot of gay conservatives choose to throw trans people under the bus now gay people are (mostly) treated equally in the UK.

I realized when I wrote down my thoughts on the subject, that they were not heavy on detail.  But my point was not to address complexities of the gay/trans world, but to address tom's simplistic dichotomy.  Tom is making an ethical-naturalist argument - that what is ‘nature’ is ‘better’ – a well-known fallacy in the philosophical world.  It has two flaws to it: (1) that the object is not at all natural, but our interpretation of natural, and thus essentially artifact (eg, the Ptolemaic system); and (2) why should the natural be preferred over artifact, anyway?

These are ethical questions, to be addressed before getting into the distinctions, or complexities of 'gayness' or 'trans' sexuality.  I'm not sure I fully comprehend the latter, anyway...so I’ll bow to your superior thoughts on that subject.

I appreciate you weren’t going into a deeper debate on gender and sexuality, but I had to mention it

I fully agree on nature not always being best. World would possibly be a nasty place is we just allowed our base natures to lead our decisions.

My views on this subject will probably be generally unwelcome, but:

When a man who has been competing with great success in physically demanding competitive sports “identifies” as female but expects to continue in the women’s section that sport without any form of handicap reflecting his naturally superior physical strength and other attributes….

When a man who is admitted to hospital with injuries or
an illness “identifies” as a woman and claims the right to be accommodated and treated in a female ward….

When a male sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a vicious assault “identifies” as female and demands to serve that sentence in a women’s prison…

Then in my simple, humble opinion…the world has gone completely and utterly bloody barking mad.

There have already been numerous reported incidents of males claiming to be females, and then going on to make unwanted sexual advances and even sexual assaults on women. Even one would be too many.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:My views on this subject will probably be generally unwelcome, but:

When a man who has been competing with great success in physically demanding competitive sports “identifies” as female but expects to continue in the women’s section that sport without any form of handicap reflecting his naturally superior physical strength and other attributes….

When a man who is admitted to hospital with injuries or
an illness “identifies” as a woman and claims the right to be accommodated and treated in a female ward….

When a male sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a vicious assault “identifies” as female and demands to serve that sentence in a women’s prison…

Then in my simple, humble opinion…the world has gone completely and utterly bloody barking mad.

There have already been numerous reported incidents of males claiming to be females, and then going on to make unwanted sexual advances and even sexual assaults on women. Even one would be too many.

Fred...so great to hear from you.  Especially on a deeper philosophical matter.

You are equating two entirely different premises, Fred.  The man admitted to the hospital has a physical issue, which is based on his empirically physical being.  Maybe he had some physical changes, and that needs to be taken into account by hospital services.  But, nevertheless he is being treated for his physical presentation.

Whether or not you agree with him, the man who enters prison has a moral issue, and his self-definition may or may not be relevant (and, he may have ulterior motives, but for simplicity sake let's take him at his word).  Because moral issues are different from physical issues, he needs a different kind of treatment - perhaps a priest or a counsellor (and not for his self-definition, but for his hostilities due to the way society mistreats him).

First, because he is in a penal institution, the people in charge need not necessarily accede to his wishes to be treated as gender alternative.  Second, his moral issue may or may not be mixed up with his self-definition, and the way that society responds to him.  Perhaps his father rejects him, or the kids at school mistreated him.  The point is, if he's to be helped at all it is not for physical injury or illness, but for moral adjustments.

By moral, I don't mean to suggest that his self-identification needs adjustment.  But perhaps his response to the way society treats him needs adjustment.  Not everyone accepts him, and that makes his challenges harder.  You may have heard, it is in this sense that physical injury/illness is easier to deal with.

Yes ok quill... You absolute lunatic... You just said that we should take the word of convicted criminals!!!


Do you really think we should trust the words of a convicted criminal???


And also believe that we should ignore all scientific and biological evidence and common sense... and instead believe that a man is a woman, just because he says so... And treat him exactly the same as a woman...!!!???

You are an absolute loon!!!


And great to hear from you Moley!


Good to know that you are well and good!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes ok quill... You absolute lunatic... You just said that we should take the word of convicted criminals!!!

I keep telling you tom, this is not about me!  The ethical-naturalist theory was alive long before I was born.  What do you think caused all of the problems with the Church and the Inquisition?  It was the insistence that value is fact...just as you are doing.

Tommy Monk wrote:Do you really think we should trust the words of a convicted criminal???

Nelson Mandela was a convicted criminal.  He rose to be the president of South Africa.

Tommy Monk wrote:And also believe that we should ignore all scientific and biological evidence and common sense... and instead believe that a man is a woman, just because he says so... And treat him exactly the same as a woman...!!!???

So far, you haven't presented evidence for your 'moral is substantive' argument.  Why, with all this scientific and biological evidence, are you unable to prove the one thing you represent: that values are anything but personal choice?  If you don't like gays or trans, or anyone who is different from you...just say so!  Don't try to wrap it up in this mumbo-jumbo that x proves y, when you cannot even establish that x exists.

Tommy Monk wrote:You are an absolute loon!!!

...said the demoralized and defeated orator.  

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:My views on this subject will probably be generally unwelcome, but:

When a man who has been competing with great success in physically demanding competitive sports “identifies” as female but expects to continue in the women’s section that sport without any form of handicap reflecting his naturally superior physical strength and other attributes….

When a man who is admitted to hospital with injuries or
an illness “identifies” as a woman and claims the right to be accommodated and treated in a female ward….

When a male sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a vicious assault “identifies” as female and demands to serve that sentence in a women’s prison…

Then in my simple, humble opinion…the world has gone completely and utterly bloody barking mad.

There have already been numerous reported incidents of males claiming to be females, and then going on to make unwanted sexual advances and even sexual assaults on women. Even one would be too many.

Fred...so great to hear from you.  Especially on a deeper philosophical matter.

You are equating two entirely different premises, Fred.  The man admitted to the hospital has a physical issue, which is based on his empirically physical being.  Maybe he had some physical changes, and that needs to be taken into account by hospital services.  But, nevertheless he is being treated for his physical presentation.

Whether or not you agree with him, the man who enters prison has a moral issue, and his self-definition may or may not be relevant (and, he may have ulterior motives, but for simplicity sake let's take him at his word).  Because moral issues are different from physical issues, he needs a different kind of treatment - perhaps a priest or a counsellor (and not for his self-definition, but for his hostilities due to the way society mistreats him).

First, because he is in a penal institution, the people in charge need not necessarily accede to his wishes to be treated as gender alternative.  Second, his moral issue may or may not be mixed up with his self-definition, and the way that society responds to him.  Perhaps his father rejects him, or the kids at school mistreated him.  The point is, if he's to be helped at all it is not for physical injury or illness, but for moral adjustments.

By moral, I don't mean to suggest that his self-identification needs adjustment.  But perhaps his response to the way society treats him needs adjustment.  Not everyone accepts him, and that makes his challenges harder.  You may have heard, it is in this sense that physical injury/illness is easier to deal with.  

As always, Quill, you present your argument with great eloquence and, as always, it is a reflection of and a great credit to your skills as an advocate. However, setting aside the obfuscations and ifs, buts, maybe’s and what ifs? , the most challenging aspect of this entire issue is really quite simple - whose rights are the more important, a biological woman or a biological man who has identified as being female?

The two examples that I used were actual cases that have been reported in the past, one of them in my nearest town. The prison matter resulted, as I recall, primarily in an argument between lawyers and the prison authorities and I confess that I can’t remember the outcome. The hospital example was more serious: A person who had been born as a male but, in adulthood, “identified” as female demanded and was granted accommodation on an all-female ward. That night a lady in her 70s awoke to find him/her/they (choose any permutation you wish in accordance with what, apparently, is the modern grammatical rule for the application of pronouns) sitting on her bed with his hand up her nightie while at the same time displaying an appendage which under normal circumstances (at least normal in my era) should not have been evident on a women’s orthopaedic ward.

Again, I can’t remember the eventual outcome or whether our NHS has agreed any policy for such future eventualities, though since the organisation has - if the tabloid press is to be believed - adopted a policy under which admissions staff not only ask in-patients for a declaration of their Covid status but also, in the case of men, “are you pregnant?” I personally do not entertain much confidence in NHS management having reached any conclusion that could be described as sensible and logical.

To sum up my own opinion, such as it is: Biological women, whether in hospital or in prison, have an inalienable right to be fully protected against the unwelcome sexual advances of “self identified women.”
That also applies in sporting events; the obvious physical advantages of trans women competitors would be grotesquely unfair in the majority of sports, equestrian classes being one of the few exceptions.

Maybe, however, I should just remain happy in my own support of something that dear, wise old Nicko once posted during a debate similar to this….something like “if you’ve got meat and two veg you’re a bloke; if you’ve got no meat or veg you’re a woman.”

Fred M. wrote:The two examples that I used were actual cases that have been reported in the past, one of them in my nearest town. The prison matter resulted, as I recall, primarily in an argument between lawyers and the prison authorities and I confess that I can’t remember the outcome. The hospital example was more serious: A person who had been born as a male but, in adulthood, “identified” as female demanded and was granted accommodation on an all-female ward. That night a lady in her 70s awoke to find him/her/they (choose any permutation you wish in accordance with what, apparently, is the modern grammatical rule for the application of pronouns) sitting on her bed with his hand up her nightie while at the same time displaying an appendage which under normal circumstances (at least normal in my era) should not have been evident on a women’s orthopaedic ward.

The difficulty is that you juxtapose two different situations, Fred, as opposed to a common situation with different outcomes.  You can't compare a prison to a hospital with patients admitted "for injuries or an illness".  Too many discrepancies enter the picture.  For starters, one is incarceration for punishment, the other is for treatment of "injuries or an illness".  This affects the purposes and degree of constraint/coercion properly utilized.

In fact, the only thing that these examples have in common is the need to provide separate facilities for the genders - something we always knew.  The challenge about these examples is not the need for separate facilities, but the need for a more accurate identifier of gender.  Right now, we use the more primitive a-look-at-the-genitalia (tom's thesis), which puts the genuine trans in the vulnerable position.

Presently, we are at the most primitive stage.  We are just beginning to recognize 'gayness' as biology, and not a crime.  But it's a start that we differentiate the charlatan from the genuine, and honor the legitimacy of the latter.

How is another question.  But it's important that we don't use that frustration as an excuse to go backwards.

And, to update, there’s breaking news here that a convicted murderer who has “morphed” from male to female has now decided to “identify” as a baby and is demanding nappies (diapers for the benefit of our US friends) and a dummy in her/his/their/its prison cell.

In the name of Christ, how the hell can anyone with more than two operational brain cells take this sort of ridiculous, faddist nonsense seriously?

Yes Moley... Maybe we should take his word for it... And maybe he will become the next President/Prime minister of a nation ..!?


When he grows up a bit and gets to wear long trousers that is...

And another…A senior police officer has just said that trans police officers should be empowered to strip search female suspects.

Let’s look at the implications of that in a little more depth than simply the determination of the police to ensure obeisance to the great god Equality and Diversity: At the time of initial arrest, regardless of the severity of the alleged crime, a suspect is in law presumed to be innocent. That is at the very root of criminal law, surely Quill?

So, an innocent teenage girl must accept that if she is “reasonably suspected” of having a couple of joints stuffed into her knickers she can be taken to the police station, handed over to a couple of female officers, possibly including one who has “identified” as female, and forcibly strip searched and made to undergo a highly embarrassing and grotesquely invasive examination of he genitalia.

HER rights as a human being, innocent at that stage of any crime? The answer is “worthless.” The trans officer can in theory leer at and interfere with her body and she will have damn all right of complaint or, even worse, redress…on the bloody insane grounds that to do so might well constitute a hate crime!

Pray tell me if I am wrong, Quill, and I will readily bow to your far superior legal knowledge, but the above scenario would in my opinion be an inevitable consequence of the senior officer’s recommendation becoming a legal requirement.

You correctly make the point about the need to differentiate between the genuine and the charlatan, but how? If a biological man already has the legal night to “self identify” as a woman and, even further along the line to “identify” as a baby and demand nappies and a dummy in a prison cell then I fear that we have reached the point of being certifiably insane as a species.

If I said that I feel like I'm really an African man... Can I change my appearance accordingly and 'black up' to look like this...?

Moley wrote:
Maybe, however, I should just remain happy in my own support of something that dear, wise old Nicko once posted during a debate similar to this….something like “if you’ve got meat and two veg you’re a bloke; if you’ve got no meat or veg you’re a woman.”

However... If a man has his meat and 2 veg removed, he is fundamentally still a man, but just with his tackle removed.

Fred M. wrote:Let’s look at the implications of that in a little more depth than simply the determination of the police to ensure obeisance to the great god Equality and Diversity: At the time of initial arrest, regardless of the severity of the alleged crime, a suspect is in law presumed to be innocent. That is at the very root of criminal law, surely Quill?

Let's look at it in the way they do whenever a cop nabs a black man: (1) offending cop gets a fully paid vacation at taxpayers expense for, say, 6-months; allowing (2) another cop to plant (drop) some spare knickers in the bushes; and (3) then wait until investigators can find said "dropsy" evidence in the bushes; and (4) the prosecuting court seats an all-cop jury, who will (5) quickly find the charged cop innocent; and (6) appellate courts will affirm, because it was all according to due process of law.

The cop gets promoted to Chief of sex crimes Division, because he has experience with those things.

Waffle...

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:Let’s look at the implications of that in a little more depth than simply the determination of the police to ensure obeisance to the great god Equality and Diversity: At the time of initial arrest, regardless of the severity of the alleged crime, a suspect is in law presumed to be innocent. That is at the very root of criminal law, surely Quill?

Let's look at it in the way they do whenever a cop nabs a black man: (1) offending cop gets a fully paid vacation at taxpayers expense for, say, 6-months; allowing (2) another cop to plant (drop) some spare knickers in the bushes; and (3) then wait until investigators can find said "dropsy" evidence in the bushes; and (4) the prosecuting court seats an all-cop jury, who will (5) quickly find the charged cop innocent; and (6) appellate courts will affirm, because it was all according to due process of law.

The cop gets promoted to Chief of sex crimes Division, because he has experience with those things.

That may well be a highly illuminating account of a single example of apparent US police corruption and malpractice, Quill, but it hardly answers my question: Is a teenage girl - black or white - not entitled to a presumption of innocence before being stripped naked and possibly leered at and even sexually interfered with by a trans female police officer who conceivably still has male genitalia? And would that not be a gross breach of HER human rights?

I suggest that under such circumstances the suspect should be perfectly entitled to demand that the officers carrying out such an intimate and highly embarrassing examination of her body at least be members of her own sex AND GENDER.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:That may well be a highly illuminating account of a single example of apparent US police corruption and malpractice, Quill, but it hardly answers my question: Is a teenage girl - black or white - not entitled to a presumption of innocence before being stripped naked and possibly leered at and even sexually interfered with by a trans female police officer who conceivably still has male genitalia? And would that not be a gross breach of HER human rights?

It's not a "single example", but one that happens every day in black communities in America, and is a greater problem then some esoteric, bizarre example involving gender changing.  "Pattern and practice" means the habit of police to break the laws - hence, I changed the subject to an area where there is a real 'pattern and practice'.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:I suggest that under such circumstances the suspect should be perfectly entitled to demand that the officers carrying out such an intimate and highly embarrassing examination of her body at least be members of her own sex AND GENDER.

As to your rare example, the practical solution is don't provoke that situation.  Use a naturally-born female officer for the strip-search at the station, just as you would use a bi-lingual speaking officer for, say, a Spanish-speaking suspect, and not try to force the suspect to speak English.

You don’t put officers in those situations for any reason but gathering evidence.  They are there to do a job: collecting evidence.  There’s really no reason to expect that they are “leering” or interfering “with her body”.

If the occasion arises – male or female – the suspect has recourse to complaint procedures.  No need to anticipate it.

Also... Don't allow men, who say they are women, into facilities designed specifically for women... Toilets and changing rooms etc... And also in competitions designed specifically for women!


All of which is currently allowed under the barmy gender laws!

Tommy Monk wrote:Also... Don't allow men, who say they are women, into facilities designed specifically for women... Toilets and changing rooms etc... And also in competitions designed specifically for women!

All of which is currently allowed under the barmy gender laws!

Well, of course, that depends upon how you define 'men' and 'women' - particularly when sex-change operations are readily available. And remember, you can't use 'natural' as your ethic, without justifying it.

It is an offence to women!

Its taken a long time to 'allow' to take parts in sports, there are some countries where its just not 'allowed' even now, why should a minority with a difference that nature or the environment has made with the human blueprints get to potentially undo all that effort. Once puberty is reached in males there is no going back from the physiological advantages, more muscle mass and bigger ligament attachments not to mention faster and greater volume of oxygen exchange in the muscles, this cannot be altered, a male can drastically drop testosterone levels but it won't change what is already there. For someone born physically male he would have to have treatment before puberty to be on the same level physiologically as someone born female. Question: Why is someone described as a 'cis' woman/man when they are physically and psychologically female/male, the original blueprint surely?

Tommy Monk wrote:It is an offence to women!

It's also an offense to gays/trans not to respect their gender choice. So, there are two victims here. Do you have a resolution?

Vintage wrote:Once puberty is reached in males there is no going back from the physiological advantages, more muscle mass and bigger ligament attachments not to mention faster and greater volume of oxygen exchange in the muscles, this cannot be altered, a male can drastically drop testosterone levels but it won't change what is already there. For someone born physically male he would have to have treatment before puberty to be on the same level physiologically as someone born female.

Are you saying you can’t get there from here…live with it!?  Obviously, we are discussing a moral dilemma: women are put at a competitive disadvantage if they must compete with a fully developed male; while the trans-(former-) male is unable to compete altogether, if we turn our backs on him or her.  Take you pick…which victim do you want?

Maybe the answer is to have separate games for the gay/trans, along the lines of the Paralympic Games for athletes with physical, mental and sensorial disabilities.  

Vintage wrote:Question: Why is someone described as a 'cis' woman/man when they are physically and psychologically female/male, the original blueprint surely?

I don’t know what ‘cis’ means.  To my recollection I’ve never seen that expression in writing, nor heard it in conversation.

Vintage wrote:why should a minority with a difference that nature or the environment has made with the human blueprints get to potentially undo all that effort?

We have been discussing whether ethical-naturalism - ie, the theory that it appears to be ‘nature’s’ choice, and we should just accept it - is even appropriate here.  https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethical-naturalism

See also: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195147790.001.0001/acprof-9780195147797-chapter-4

It appears that mankind readily accepts altering nature when it suits him/her: we build bridges over nature’s canyons; we build dams to hold back nature’s rivers; we invent airplanes to allow men/women to fly, defying nature’s gravity; we devise medicines that inoculate and cure nature’s diseases; we have mastered the secrets of nature’s nuclear energy; at CERN, we have even recreated the Higgs Boson and elements that don’t even exist naturally on earth (eg, Element 115).

Why, if we are capable, do we balk at allowing a person to be the gender s/he chooses?  Shouldn't we ignore or even oppose making an ethic out of nature, as we do with so many other things?  How do you advocate the ethical-natural argument in this case, when in so many other situations we blithely rush to defy nature??

I am not saying live with it, I am saying do something about it but I am asking why are you disadvantaging the majority of half the population just to change your life. If someone believes they are in the wrong body give them the help to achieve the change, with the understanding that the change however good will rarely be perfect, there will be things that won't be possible (as yet anyway). If you are a women who transistions to a man but keeps female organs and gives birth they concieve and give birth as a female, you can't put 'father' on the birth certificate and be honest however much you want that, sometimes we have to accept what we can do and what we can't do, people have to do it all the time. There has to be a place for people who transition but its not to take the place of those who are happy with their mind and body being the same. I wonder how different the reaction would be if trans men affected the male population as much as trans women affect the female population. .

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Also... Don't allow men, who say they are women, into facilities designed specifically for women... Toilets and changing rooms etc... And also in competitions designed specifically for women!

All of which is currently allowed under the barmy gender laws!

Well, of course, that depends upon how you define 'men' and 'women' - particularly when sex-change operations are readily available. And remember, you can't use 'natural' as your ethic, without justifying it.

A woman is definitely not a man in a dress who has had his meat and two veg surgically removed!!!


It's quite simple really!!!

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It is an offence to women!

It's also an offense to gays/trans not to respect their gender choice. So, there are two victims here. Do you have a resolution?

It's not a 'choice'...!!!


It is an offence to the overwhelming vast majority of people, as well as common sense and science and biological fact, to try to bully people into having to believe/accept the delusional beliefs of a tiny minority of people who try to tell us that they are something else other than what they quite clearly physiologically are!!!


I believe that these people are suffering from mental illness... It's not the body that is wrong... It is the mind that is confused in not being able to accept the reality of things!

Vintage wrote:I am not saying live with it, I am saying do something about it but I am asking why are you disadvantaging the majority of half the population just to change your life.

I'm not. Remember, I am the person who described the situation as a dilemma.

Vintage wrote:If someone believes they are in the wrong body give them the help to achieve the change, with the understanding that the change however good will rarely be perfect, there will be things that won't be possible (as yet anyway). If you are a women who transistions to a man but keeps female organs and gives birth they concieve and give birth as a female, you can't put 'father' on the birth certificate and be honest however much you want that, sometimes we have to accept what we can do and what we can't do, people have to do it all the time. There has to be a place for people who transition but its not to take the place of those who are happy with their mind and body being the same. I wonder how different the reaction would be if trans men affected the male population as much as trans women affect the female population. .

So, you favor my proposal that an athletic league should be started that is specifically for gay and trans men?