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

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:46 pm

First topic message reminder :

What a complete numpty!!!

lol!

by Original Quill Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:26 pm

Vintage wrote:It is them or us, as the equality people have said any attempt to check weight and height is discriminatory, when people say any transwoman of whatever physique should just be allowed to play contact sports with the physiological different biological female is blind to the consequenses or just doesn't give a damn about other people's rights and well being, so yes 'them and us'.

If the "equality people" have said "any attempt to check weight and height is discriminatory", then the expression "it is them or us" is the ultimate discriminatory declaration. I mean, isn't the 'them/us' distinction the very thing "equality people" are trying to eradicate? We hear 'us whites' and 'them blacks' all the time in the American south...now we are to hear the same thing about the trans??

Perhaps we need to develop areas where 'us/them' is legitimate, and where it is not – where it is legitimate to discriminate. For example, there can only be one nuclear family, where it is legitimate to speak of 'us/them' - at a minimum, one marriage that can produce children biologically. Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not... - Page 3 2190311264

Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not... - Page 3 2190311264

Here, we have 'boy/girl' that we find to be questionable. Clearly, tom wants that distinction to be constant, and therefore legitimate. The trans at least want it to be mutable when a boy chooses to be a girl.

That’s the reason why I suggest “weight-class” as a legitimate distinction, or without discrimination. It seems to work, without objection, in boxing and wrestling. I think “height” is left to ‘natural selection’ in basketball – few if anyone will be selected under six-foot, male or female. But they might develop a short-league and allow men and women (or female) to compete…who knows?

by Syl Wed Apr 20, 2022 6:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

It's not charm or personality that gives a man the physical advantage in sport, scientifically....

"Men are, in general, more muscular than women. Women are just over half as strong as men in their upper bodies, and about two-thirds as strong in their lower bodies.

You cant argue with nature Quill.

I agree with your quote about gender differences and strength. As I said to tommy, instead of leaving the trans out in the cold, we could do a study in which we find out which physical skills males have it over females, and which females might have it over men. Then we could develop competition classes that equalize or make more competitive the male/female match-up.

Otherwise, we segregate them.

The only way not to segregate them would be to create two new categories....one for transexual men, and one for transexual women.
Many countries would not tolerate this, so they would still be segregated against.
And what abut transgenders, who feel they are in the wrong body, but have had no surgery...so in fact, they are still the same sex they were born into.

We would need bigger arenas, the Olympics would last for months....It's a bloody minefield. affraid

by Original Quill Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:36 pm

Syl wrote:The only way not to segregate them would be to create two new categories....one for transexual men, and one for transexual women.
Many countries would not tolerate this, so they would still be segregated against.
And what abut transgenders, who feel they are in the wrong body, but have had no surgery...so in fact, they are still the same sex they were born into.

We would need bigger arenas, the Olympics would last for months....It's a bloody minefield.

You make a good point. But ‘bigger arenas’ have never deterred us. To find the answer, you either have to go bigger, or smaller - more inclusive, or less inclusive.

What I mean is, you either have to be more inclusive, and group everyone in one big field, or you have to chop up fields, going smaller and smaller, according to still neutral categories.

The aim is to achieve value-neutral divisions – boundaries that offend no one, yet are still relevant to size/weight advantages. (An interesting side-note is that boundaries are what were used invidiously to create racial barriers.) So, you avoid sensitive divisions, like race or gender.

Since Jackie Robinson, we seem to have eliminated race (theoretically, although the Jim Crow game is still played). But here we are with overlapping boundaries, what with gender. And, we have the factor that gender actually makes a difference in the competition. That means: re-mix the dough, and re-slice the bread.

So, I’ve given everyone the formula, what kinds of value-neutral divisions can we come up with?

by Vintage Wed Apr 20, 2022 8:33 pm

A white person playing a contact sport agianst a black person of similar stature is not going to potentially cause serious injury to each other unless one or the other is illegally wielding a baseball bat.
People are happy to accommodate transpersons but on a reasonably level playing field figuratively and literally I would think. Why people try to hide the physiological differences under the carpet in the name of equality I don't know, it is all one sided as far as I can see, equality and rights rules for one set of people but not for those whose lives and careers can be altered or ruined. The fact is that generally men and women are not equal physically otherwise why do we segregate sports for biological males and females. If you say anyman whatever his physical state can transition to a woman and then play contact sport against biological women without a problem I give up, all reason and logic goes out the window.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:02 pm

Vintage wrote: A white person playing a contact sport agianst a black person of similar stature is not going to potentially cause serious injury to each other unless one or the other is illegally wielding a baseball bat.
People are happy to accommodate transpersons but on a reasonably level playing field figuratively and literally I would think. Why people try to hide the physiological differences under the carpet in the name of equality I don't know, it is all one sided as far as I can see, equality and rights rules for one set of people but not for those whose lives and careers can be altered or ruined. The fact is that generally men and women are not equal physically otherwise why do we segregate sports for biological males and females. If you say anyman whatever his physical state can transition to a woman and then play contact sport against biological women without a problem I give up, all reason and logic goes out the window.

So you agree with me...that relevant boundaries keep safety in mind, as well as equity.

Stop uselessly reiterating the victim posturing, and join in the effort to determine relevant, value-neutral groupings for sports competition. As I've mentioned, boxing and wrestling have found it even without the impetus of equity. Apparently, they have simply determined that the classifications should be according to size, and size is calibrated by weight.

Frankly, your lack of faith in women is somewhat demeaning. Didn't Billy Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in tennis? Didn't Jennie Finch strike out major league slugger Albert Pujols? Don't women play equally well in Softball, generally? Don't Canadian clubs form coed groups for Curling? Don't the Olympics make Equestrian sports a coed event? How about Danica Patrick in NASCAR? Carissa Moore at Surfing? Coed sports are quite common: sailing, tennis and badminton, luge, and ice skating. Interaction between genders in a group sport encourages friendship and mutual respect. Each player is valued and recognized not only for their own unique athletic skill set but for how their talent completes a team, making it stronger and more united.

by Vintage Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:13 pm

You may have missed the part about 'contact' sports, purposely. I have no problem with people being classified to play sports happens in all male and all female grouping, I am against people who say grouping is discriminatory if you are a transwoman wanting to play contact sports with biological women. You wouldn't put even the best female heavyweight boxer(if there is such a group) in with a heavyweight male boxer surely. So until the physical advantage held by a male that goes through puberty is negated you cannot expect the average female rugby player to play against a really large transwoman and call it equality.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:58 pm

Vintage wrote:You may have missed the part about 'contact' sports, purposely. I have no problem with people being classified to play sports happens in all male and all female grouping, I am against people who say grouping is discriminatory if you are a transwoman wanting to play contact sports with biological women. You wouldn't put even the best female heavyweight boxer(if there is such a group) in with a heavyweight male boxer surely. So until the physical advantage held by a male that goes through puberty is negated you cannot expect the average female rugby player to play against a really large transwoman and call it equality.

I agree wholeheartedly with you. My answer is twofold: (1) where feasible, there should be coed sports (ie, King, Patrick, Finch and Moore, above); and (2) where coed is not feasible, there should be reclassification, so that no one is left out. If women are at a disadvantage in, say, basketball, there should be over 6-feet and under 6-feet tall leagues, so that nobody is left out.

When I lived in Phoenix, I was a member of a private athletic/tennis club. They had a nice, indoor basketball court. The Arizona State University Women’s Varsity Team would sometimes show up – not an organized event, mind you, nor the whole team - but just some would show up – and play pick-up games with anyone who wanted to play.

They were spectacular – and humbled the guys – not by being physical, but by being great outside shooters. My point is, they could play with anybody. Women can play even physical games with men…they just change the way the game is played...a wee bit. Twisted Evil

We are too stuck in our habits. Just adjust the rules a little bit, and let them go at it. I think we are too stuck on rules and the habits they bring.

by Syl Thu Apr 21, 2022 11:17 am

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:The only way not to segregate them would be to create two new categories....one for transexual men, and one for transexual women.
Many countries would not tolerate this, so they would still be segregated against.
And what abut transgenders, who feel they are in the wrong body, but have had no surgery...so in fact, they are still the same sex they were born into.

We would need bigger arenas, the Olympics would last for months....It's a bloody minefield.

You make a good point. But ‘bigger arenas’ have never deterred us. To find the answer, you either have to go bigger, or smaller - more inclusive, or less inclusive.

What I mean is, you either have to be more inclusive, and group everyone in one big field, or you have to chop up fields, going smaller and smaller, according to still neutral categories.

The aim is to achieve value-neutral divisions – boundaries that offend no one, yet are still relevant to size/weight advantages. (An interesting side-note is that boundaries are what were used invidiously to create racial barriers.) So, you avoid sensitive divisions, like race or gender.

Since Jackie Robinson, we seem to have eliminated race (theoretically, although the Jim Crow game is still played). But here we are with overlapping boundaries, what with gender. And, we have the factor that gender actually makes a difference in the competition. That means: re-mix the dough, and re-slice the bread.

So, I’ve given everyone the formula, what kinds of value-neutral divisions can we come up with?

Mixing race into the argument is fudging the issue.
Nowadays, all colour, race, shapes and sizes can enter sport and compete against each other.
Some black people are better than whites at certain sports, some whites better than blacks, but it's a fair competition....the better athlete wins.

It's simply not a fair match if you set a male against a female...whether they still have a penis or not.

Nothing more to add...just to say it's nice to see debate on here again. x

by Original Quill Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:48 pm

Syl wrote:Mixing race into the argument is fudging the issue.
Nowadays, all colour, race, shapes and sizes can enter sport and compete against each other.
Some black people are better than whites at certain sports, some whites better than blacks, but it's a fair competition....the better athlete wins.

It's simply not a fair match if you set a male against a female...whether they still have a penis or not.

Nothing more to add...just to say it's nice to see debate on here again. X

You missed the analogy to race. It’s not that races are excluded in sports today, but the fact they were excluded in the past. In fact, I said as much when I said “we have eliminated race” as an exclusionary factor. But sometimes arguments for exclusion still use the same Jim Crow tactics.

Jim Crow tactics typically cast the exclusion as something else – say, hygiene or intelligence – and use that parallel issue as the reason exclusion. One famous trick that southern voter clerks used to exclude blacks from voting was the count the marbles in the jar trick. If you didn’t get it right, you couldn’t vote. WTF do marbles have to do with voting?? It didn’t matter. The purpose was to exclude the black from voting, but to pretend you had a value-neutral (ie, non-racial) test.

Strength seems a little more relevant to sports than marbles in a jar to voting. But consider the university women basketball players I discussed – sometimes strength doesn’t matter. They proved it.

by Vintage Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:44 pm

Do many male American football teams play against female American football teams these days?
There is no physical issue in black white or any colour mixing in sports, which of course you know.
There is an issue with transwomen with the advantage of muscle, bone, ligament and oxygen transfer that is the product of going through puberty as a male that cannot be altered.

Quote from a trans woman cyclist: The retained advantage of people who have gone through puberty in strength, stamina and physique with or without testosterone suppression has been well documented.

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Someone can 'feel' like they're in the wrong body as much as they like... But everyone else can think the problem is to do with their mental health instead... And also that no matter how much they try to later their physical appearance, they are stil biologically and physically the sex that they actually are, not the sex they 'feel' they want to be!!!

If nature, without purpose, created that person, what is wrong with the person making a purposeful decision to change him or herself? Like, if a person was born with dark hair, what is your objection if s/he becomes a blond? If nature has no purpose, and the subject does have a purpose, why not go with the non-random and leave nature out of it?

More importantly, for Ben's question, what motivates your decision? If nature doesn't care, and there is no god to care, why do you care?

Now quill waffles on even more, trying to equate a man in a dress and a wig claiming to be an actual adult female human, to being much the same as a woman changing her hair colour...

What a nother load of nonsense from quill...!!!

A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man... No matter how much they try to surgically try to change their physical appearance or the amount of drugs they take!!!

I wonder if quill would be happy if he started a relationship with a 'woman' after wanting to get married and start a family etc, only to find out, much later, that 'she' was actually a man in a dress who had had some surgical sex change procedure and breast implants...!!!???

Would he think that this man was really an actual woman and carry on with his relationship with it...!!!???

lol!

by Syl Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:55 pm

Tommy and Quill...both have extreme views, and neither seem to understand the middle road.
Luckily, not everyone shares their views. Cool

by Original Quill Fri Apr 22, 2022 5:21 pm

Vintage wrote:Do many male American football teams play against female American football teams these days?
There is no physical issue in black white or any colour mixing in sports, which of course you know.
There is an issue with transwomen with the advantage of muscle, bone, ligament and oxygen transfer that is the product of going through puberty as a male that cannot be altered.

Quote from a trans woman cyclist: The retained advantage of people who have gone through puberty in strength, stamina and physique with or without testosterone suppression has been well documented.

Most of the reservations about women in contact sports is simply cultural sexism. The myth of the delicate female went out with the likes of Wonder Woman, Xena, Queen of the Jungle and Rosie the Riveter. There's nothing exclusive to men about the bumping and bruising of the human body. Both men and women hurt after a game, and they both retain the black/blue bruises requiring ice bathes.

You will be pleased to know women have actually applied, and gained entry to play in college games, at least in the skilled positions. The size positions will continue to go to men because of their genetically larger bodies; but already women are beginning to start professional football leagues, and of course the WNBA has been going for years. Women are now refereeing the professional sports - a precursor, history shows, to integrating women into player positions.

Society has a reluctance about contact sports with regard to women, and of course this is a part of the of the suppression of women that sexism delivers. Society is begrudgingly giving way in that regard. In the final analysis, there’s no reason that women cannot be integrated into most sports, treating their size limitations as we presently do for men (eg, smaller males generally assume scat-back and receiver positions in American football, guard and swing positions in basketball). Every time we try to hold back women due to assumptions about their delicate physique, it’s women who get burned. Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_v._Boren

by Original Quill Fri Apr 22, 2022 5:27 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:What a nother load of nonsense from quill...!!!

There is no such word as "nother" in the English language. There is a contraction - "another" - but it doesn't stand alone without the article, "an"...least of all does it create an entirely new word.

by Original Quill Fri Apr 22, 2022 5:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man... No matter how much they try to surgically try to change their physical appearance or the amount of drugs they take!!!

Let's take another euphemism: If god had meant for man to fly, he would have given him wings.

We now have men flying.

Did god get it wrong? Or did the flat-earthers just jump to the wrong conclusion again?

by Vintage Fri Apr 22, 2022 9:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Vintage wrote:Do many male American football teams play against female American football teams these days?
There is no physical issue in black white or any colour mixing in sports, which of course you know.
There is an issue with transwomen with the advantage of muscle, bone, ligament and oxygen transfer that is the product of going through puberty as a male that cannot be altered.

Quote from a trans woman cyclist: The retained advantage of people who have gone through puberty in strength, stamina and physique with or without testosterone suppression has been well documented.

Most of the reservations about women in contact sports is simply cultural sexism. The myth of the delicate female went out with the likes of Wonder Woman, Xena, Queen of the Jungle and Rosie the Riveter. There's nothing exclusive to men about the bumping and bruising of the human body. Both men and women hurt after a game, and they both retain the black/blue bruises requiring ice bathes.

You will be pleased to know women have actually applied, and gained entry to play in college games, at least in the skilled positions. The size positions will continue to go to men because of their genetically larger bodies; but already women are beginning to start professional football leagues, and of course the WNBA has been going for years. Women are now refereeing the professional sports - a precursor, history shows, to integrating women into player positions.

Society has a reluctance about contact sports with regard to women, and of course this is a part of the of the suppression of women that sexism delivers. Society is begrudgingly giving way in that regard. In the final analysis, there’s no reason that women cannot be integrated into most sports, treating their size limitations as we presently do for men (eg, smaller males generally assume scat-back and receiver positions in American football, guard and swing positions in basketball). Every time we try to hold back women due to assumptions about their delicate physique, it’s women who get burned. Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_v._Boren

That you are saying such drivel is very telling, I doubt you believe such twaddle. You know very well the differences in male and female in contact sports the fact that men can hit or tackle another man and cause damage, the fact that women can hit or tackle another women, is entirely different to a man tackling a women in the same sport. Have you seen an average woman badly beaten by an average man, you must be saying rape is not possible because the physiological differences in male and females is nothing to write home about. Its not about delicate physique, women have pulled drams full of coal in the mines in the 1800's on their hands and knees with a leather belt around their waists. Women worked in all the industries and before that did the greater amount of agriculture, they have also fought in battles, however its not about women being particularly weak but that the average male by biology is stronger.

by Original Quill Sat Apr 23, 2022 1:12 am

Vintage wrote:You know very well the differences in male and female in contact sports the fact that men can hit or tackle another man and cause damage, the fact that women can hit or tackle another women, is entirely different to a man tackling a women in the same sport.

What differences?

Vintage wrote:Have you seen an average woman badly beaten by an average man, you must be saying rape is not possible because the physiological differences in male and females is nothing to write home about.

I’ve seen in real life what a woman can do to a man. I used to have a neighbor who would come calling every time his wife would get physical…she was a coke-whore, and everytime she would score some coke she would lose it. It was horrible…people shouldn’t do that to each other.

Vintage wrote:Its not about delicate physique, women have pulled drams full of coal in the mines in the 1800's on their hands and knees with a leather belt around their waists. Women worked in all the industries and before that did the greater amount of agriculture, they have also fought in battles, however its not about women being particularly weak but that the average male by biology is stronger.

You said it yourself. Women can take it, thus it’s just cultural. If people want to participate in sports so much, they should let them.

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 23, 2022 1:29 pm

Syl wrote:Tommy and Quill...both have extreme views, and neither seem to understand the middle road.
Luckily, not everyone shares their views.

I wouldn't say my views are extreme... Unless you think common sense is extreme...?

I know common sense isn't as common as it used to be... But it's not extreme!

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 23, 2022 1:31 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:What a nother load of nonsense from quill...!!!

There is no such word as "nother" in the English language. There is a contraction - "another" - but it doesn't stand alone without the article, "an"...least of all does it create an entirely new word.

It was obviously a typo error, I am well aware of the correct spelling of words in the English language.

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 23, 2022 1:34 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

I wonder if quill would be happy if he started a relationship with a 'woman' after wanting to get married and start a family etc, only to find out, much later, that 'she' was actually a man in a dress who had had some surgical sex change procedure and breast implants...!!!???

Would he think that this man was really an actual woman and carry on with his relationship with it...!!!???

Well Quill...!?

by Original Quill Sat Apr 23, 2022 4:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:Tommy and Quill...both have extreme views, and neither seem to understand the middle road.
Luckily, not everyone shares their views.

I wouldn't say my views are extreme... Unless you think common sense is extreme...?

I know common sense isn't as common as it used to be... But it's not extreme!

You keep passing your views off as "common sense" – as you do here, notwithstanding your denial. Maybe they are "common sense" to you, but to others you sound Medieval...you bypass the lessons taught in the Age of Reason altogether. "Common sense" is just another word for "natural", which is another word for "god" - or worse, 'the gods' as the Greeks used to say...are you appealing to the gods?

A person from the Age of Reason would ask you to prove it...prove that it's common sense! You can't...because "common sense" has no meaning. The only thing you are saying is 'it is commonly held', but that is both the common sense fallacy, and false.

The Logically Fallacious website says this about appeals to common sense:

Logically Fallacious wrote:Accepting another person’s belief, or many people’s beliefs, without demanding evidence as to why that person accepts the belief, is lazy thinking and a dangerous way to accept information.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Common-Belief

The Site suggests: Be a leader, not a follower. Those who believe that 'everyone believes', may be surprised to learn that everyone does not believe. In the wake of logical positivism, it is extreme not to require empirical evidence for one's belief.

by Tommy Monk Sun Apr 24, 2022 1:04 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

I wonder if quill would be happy if he started a relationship with a 'woman' after wanting to get married and start a family etc, only to find out, much later, that 'she' was actually a man in a dress who had had some surgical sex change procedure and breast implants...!!!???

Would he think that this man was really an actual woman and carry on with his relationship with it...!!!???

Well Quill...!?

Still no answer from Quill...

by Tommy Monk Sun Apr 24, 2022 1:23 pm

I'm sure Quills version of common sense, tells him that, yes, it really is an actual real life woman, and it would be completely right and normal and natural to be carrying on his relationship with it...

Move along... Nothing to see here... Unless... it is of course... if this 'woman' has a penis!!!???

But then quill could say that 'she' really is the whole package!!!

lol!

by Original Quill Sun Apr 24, 2022 5:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm sure Quills version of common sense, tells him that, yes, it really is an actual real life woman, and it would be completely right and normal and natural to be carrying on his relationship with it...

Move along... Nothing to see here... Unless... it is of course... if this 'woman' has a penis!!!???

But then quill could say that 'she' really is the whole package!!!

“Quill’s version of common sense” is to adopt a philosophy other than everyone knows. The philosophy is empiricism – prove it or stfu.

It’s really quite simple: you can ride on your magic carpet of common belief only for so long – about as long as the flat-earthers did their own myth.

by Tommy Monk Mon Apr 25, 2022 6:54 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

I wonder if quill would be happy if he started a relationship with a 'woman' after wanting to get married and start a family etc, only to find out, much later, that 'she' was actually a man in a dress who had had some surgical sex change procedure and breast implants...!!!???

Would he think that this man was really an actual woman and carry on with his relationship with it...!!!???

Well Quill...!?

Come on Quill... Why not answer the question here...?

Would you carry on the relationship in the belief that you are with a woman and all is well and good...?

Or would you feel that this was not possible as your girlfriend was actually a man pretending to be a woman...?

lol!

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 26, 2022 1:43 am

Looks like it is really just the deluded fools like you who are trying to ride the world of the fantasy magic carpet, where a man in a dress is an actual real adult female human, and where a (real adult female human) woman is castigated for daring to clarify the definition of her own self/biological identity!!!

These are the same types of lefty twats who will also claim to be being at the forefront of being champions of standing up for women's rights, etc!!!

Absolute lunacy!!!

by Original Quill Tue Apr 26, 2022 2:13 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Looks like it is really just the deluded fools like you who are trying to ride the world of the fantasy magic carpet, where a man in a dress is an actual real adult female human, and where a (real adult female human) woman is castigated for daring to clarify the definition of her own self/biological identity!!!

These are the same types of lefty twats who will also claim to be being at the forefront of being champions of standing up for women's rights, etc!!!

Absolute lunacy!!!

You seem discomfited, tom. You seem to have lost it, with all your twitching and noodling. Need any deeper drugs, or will a simple Mexican sleeping pill do? Laughing

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 26, 2022 4:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

I wonder if quill would be happy if he started a relationship with a 'woman' after wanting to get married and start a family etc, only to find out, much later, that 'she' was actually a man in a dress who had had some surgical sex change procedure and breast implants...!!!???

Would he think that this man was really an actual woman and carry on with his relationship with it...!!!???

Well Quill...!?

Come on Quill... Why not answer the question here...?

Would you carry on the relationship in the belief that you are with a woman and all is well and good...?

Or would you feel that this was not possible as your girlfriend was actually a man pretending to be a woman...?

lol!

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 27, 2022 2:11 pm

I wonder why Quill won't answer the question...?

by Original Quill Wed Apr 27, 2022 2:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I wonder why Quill won't answer the question...?

It's a meaningless question, tom. As is your whole approach to this issue. You want to discriminate against gays, but you don't want to do it directly. Instead, you indirectly plant a picture of Kier Stammer, who doesn't want to divert into that game, and talk about penises, but rather wants to take the discrimination issue head-on.

Now you pose a question: are you, quill, willing to discriminate against gays? Would you marry one? I find the question offensive in two ways: (1) it demeans (or suggests demeaning) my attitude toward gays by assuming my answer; and (2) more importantly, it assumes that gays themselves are distasteful, and suggests that a straight person would want nothing to do with them! That very assumption marks you as a bigot.

Why on earth don't you come out and say it: TOM FEARS GAYS!!! He is obsessed with them! He will do anything to demean them! He will do anything he thinks of to demean those who won't denounce them! You see, I just don't want to engage in that bigoted discussion with you - it's offensive.

Now, do you feel better? Of course not...because such openness exposes your blatant bigotry. Your whole attitude is fucked up...whether you express it directly, or indirectly by criticizing those who don't hold your bigotry. You'd rather go back to hiding in the bushes and make your snipes about Kier Stammer in your cowardly way. You'd rather peep about, as Shakespeare said, to try to find your dishonorable grave.

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 27, 2022 9:41 pm

It's not a meaningless question at all Quill, it's a great question!!!

A question that has caused you so much cognitive dissonance that you find it impossible to answer honestly, without completely contradicting everything you have so far posted here on this thread!

In chess terms we call this "checkmate"...!!!

lol!

by gelico Thu Apr 28, 2022 2:32 am

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

yeah, but, come on though,,,, who doesn't like talking about willies?

Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not... - Page 3 3489511464

Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not... - Page 3 3489511464

by Original Quill Thu Apr 28, 2022 4:12 am

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not a meaningless question at all Quill, it's a great question!!!

A question that has caused you so much cognitive dissonance that you find it impossible to answer honestly, without completely contradicting everything you have so far posted here on this thread!

In chess terms we call this "checkmate"...!!!

Well, indirectly...I suppose it is a great question. It reveals that you are a bigot. Twisted Evil

Now...checkmate. Wink

by Syl Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:59 am

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

yeah, but, come on though,,,, who doesn't like talking about willies?

by Tommy Monk Thu Apr 28, 2022 12:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:It's not a meaningless question at all Quill, it's a great question!!!

A question that has caused you so much cognitive dissonance that you find it impossible to answer honestly, without completely contradicting everything you have so far posted here on this thread!

In chess terms we call this "checkmate"...!!!

Well, indirectly...I suppose it is a great question. It reveals that you are a bigot.

Now...checkmate.

There's nothing bigoted about holding the belief that a man is not a woman... It is just a fact of life!

Only a complete fool would believe otherwise!!!

by Original Quill Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:There's nothing bigoted about holding the belief that a man is not a woman... It is just a fact of life!

Only a complete fool would believe otherwise!!!

Yes, there is. A bigot is defined as: "...a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group". Oxford Languages Dictionary (2022).

In your own country you're a bigot! Evil or Very Mad

by gelico Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:There's nothing bigoted about holding the belief that a man is not a woman... It is just a fact of life!

Only a complete fool would believe otherwise!!!

Yes, there is. A bigot is defined as: "...a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group". Oxford Languages Dictionary (2022).

In your own country you're a bigot!

the definition is the definition but Tommy actually seems quite reasonably attached to known biological facts and a sense of reality and truth regardless of ''groups''

by Original Quill Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:00 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes, there is. A bigot is defined as: "...a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group". Oxford Languages Dictionary (2022).

In your own country you're a bigot!

the definition is the definition but Tommy actually seems quite reasonably attached to known biological facts and a sense of reality and truth regardless of ''groups''

What is the factual basis?

by Tommy Monk Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:52 pm

A man is not a woman... That is a fact... And it is not obstinate or unreasonable to be attached to the belief of this fact!!!

It is however complete lunacy to claim a man is a woman!!!

And you are the bigot if you cling to this false belief, obstinately or unreasonably...!!!

lol!

by Original Quill Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:43 am

Tommy Monk wrote:A man is not a woman... That is a fact... And it is not obstinate or unreasonable to be attached to the belief of this fact!!!

It is however complete lunacy to claim a man is a woman!!!

And you are the bigot if you cling to this false belief, obstinately or unreasonably...!!!

You are behind the times. Did I hear you screaming "Get a Horse" to that guy in the Model T? Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 29, 2022 10:07 am

More obfuscation from Quill...

by Original Quill Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:43 pm

by Vintage Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:53 pm

Someone already asked this but why is this considered a physical biological misfunction why not the right body but the wrong mindset?

by Original Quill Fri Apr 29, 2022 11:27 pm

Vintage wrote:Someone already asked this but why is this considered a physical biological misfunction why not the right body but the wrong mindset?

Mindset is a difficult concept. 'Wrong mindset' adds to the difficulty. There is no empirical certainty that “mindset” exists, and if it does, how is it different from desire? Everyone covets money...does that make it right? Just because you want something, is that the right mindset.

Tom likes to associate correctness with physical parts (penis), but that is merely habit - the penis is associated with male sexual desires. Who is to say that habit is 'right' or even 'appropriate'? Also, keep in mind the penis is associated with rape - maybe use of the penis is not the right standard.

Or, maybe ethical naturalism is the right standard: it seems to relate to the male part in procreation, and that makes it natural. Does nature make right...or only that it works? I see no physical evidence that just because it works, that makes it right.

BTW, the bible says that Nephilim were the result of procreation between a human female and fallen angels, and the Hebrew god caused a worldwide flood to occur because of those supposed aberrations. They were obviously not 'right' because they were 'natural', according the Hebrew god.

Before you use it, define "mindset" and give us proof when it is the "wrong" mindset to a reasonable degree of certainty.

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:36 am

The male human has one X and one Y chromosome, while females have two X chromosomes.

If a man "thinks" they "feel like" a woman... This is all in the mind and that is where the problem is... It's a problem with their mental health.

by gelico Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Vintage wrote:Someone already asked this but why is this considered a physical biological misfunction why not the right body but the wrong mindset?

Mindset is a difficult concept. 'Wrong mindset' adds to the difficulty. There is no empirical certainty that “mindset” exists, and if it does, how is it different from desire? Everyone covets money...does that make it right? Just because you want something, is that the right mindset.

Tom likes to associate correctness with physical parts (penis), but that is merely habit - the penis is associated with male sexual desires. Who is to say that habit is 'right' or even 'appropriate'? Also, keep in mind the penis is associated with rape - maybe use of the penis is not the right standard.

Or, maybe ethical naturalism is the right standard: it seems to relate to the male part in procreation, and that makes it natural. Does nature make right...or only that it works? I see no physical evidence that just because it works, that makes it right.

BTW, the bible says that Nephilim were the result of procreation between a human female and fallen angels, and the Hebrew god caused a worldwide flood to occur because of those supposed aberrations. They were obviously not 'right' because they were 'natural', according the Hebrew god.

Before you use it, define "mindset" and give us proof when it is the "wrong" mindset to a reasonable degree of certainty.

You just gave us a guided tour of your own mindset with the paragraph in red.

Tom doesn't associate body parts with ''correctness'' just biological facts

Just because the word rape in itself would cause one to assume it was by a male doesn't equate to the penis being automatically associated with rape. Perhaps your own use of your own penis isn't quite ''right'' whatever that means.

I can only say that as much as dancing about with philosophical discussions on mindset is groovy it still doesn't wipe out basic biology which has existed since we all first got here

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:45 pm

Thanks for your support gelico, but I must set the record straight...

"The legal definition of rape is when a person intentionally penetrates another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person's consent."

by Original Quill Sat Apr 30, 2022 4:17 pm

gelico wrote:Tom likes to associate correctness with physical parts (penis), but that is merely habit - the penis is associated with male sexual desires. Who is to say that habit is 'right' or even 'appropriate'? Also, keep in mind the penis is associated with rape - maybe use of the penis is not the right standard.

You just gave us a guided tour of your own mindset with the paragraph in red.

Tom doesn't associate body parts with ''correctness'' just biological facts

Just because the word rape in itself would cause one to assume it was by a male doesn't equate to the penis being automatically associated with rape. Perhaps your own use of your own penis isn't quite ''right'' whatever that means.

I can only say that as much as dancing about with philosophical discussions on mindset is groovy it still doesn't wipe out basic biology which has existed since we all first got here

Read the title of this thread. For tom, having a penis is such an antithesis of womanhood that he makes a symbol of it, as if one has to deny having one or give up any association with transsexualism.

But tom's thesis is only one of several that are raised. I am much more interested in Vintage's question about "mindset". It seems that is much closer to the core of the matter, since the real question isn't really about penis-deniers, but rather mindset-deniers. What is "wrong" about the mindset of the trans?

It seems that no one can answer that question.

by eddie Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:08 pm

Well the simple answer is this:Women do not have penises.

And if they did, many men would not have sex with them.

Or am I missing something? scratch

by Original Quill Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:What is "wrong" about the mindset of the trans?

The answer: Nothing at all.

by Sponsored content

Can a woman have a penis?