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

First topic message reminder :




What a complete numpty!!!

But you have claimed that some people have been born in to the wrong bodies... By which you are claiming that the mind is not a physical construct of the brain which is in turn a physical construct of the genetic make up of a person... And in turn you are saying that the mind is a separate spirit/soul that is placed inside a physical body at some point and is a sort of inhabitant of the body...!?


Can you clarify exactly what you are claiming...?

Tommy Monk wrote:But you have claimed that some people have been born in to the wrong bodies... By which you are claiming that the mind is not a physical construct of the brain which is in turn a physical construct of the genetic make up of a person... And in turn you are saying that the mind is a separate spirit/soul that is placed inside a physical body at some point and is a sort of inhabitant of the body...!?

Can you clarify exactly what you are claiming...?

Not really. You brought up "physical construct". I honestly don't think they know enough to draw any conclusions. I'm only saying that your conclusions are without sufficient evidence.

I'm asking you cos you made the claim...!?

So you claim that trans women are real women and should be treated like real women... But you wouldn't have a sexual relationship with one or marry one...


And you claim that they are born in the wrong body which implies that the mind is not a physical construct of the brain which is in turn a physical construct of the genetic make up of a person... And in turn you are saying that the mind is a separate spirit/soul that is placed inside a physical body at some point and is a sort of inhabitant of the body... without any evidence for any of this... And you won't apply the same spirit/soul life status to unborn children while you favour abortion... And interestingly you seem to be against religion which your whole premis of a body holding a separate spirit/soul is based on!


As with most lefty's, your beliefs and views are a minefield of contradictions!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm asking you cos you made the claim...!?

Not really.  This conversation started because you associated the penis with cisgender roles.  See, OP, Starmer, Women and Penises, above.

You will recall I questioned your evidence for the assertion that physiology determines gender…

Original Quill wrote:What does gender have to do with physical biology? … I am merely pointing out, YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!

… and indeed, you had no proof.  I am not really making any claim; however, there are counter-hypotheses for which there is evidence.  You should pay attention to some of those.

But you keep hammering on the same misconception:

Tommy Monk wrote:So you claim that trans women are real women and should be treated like real women... But you wouldn't have a sexual relationship with one or marry one...

And you claim that they are born in the wrong body which implies that the mind is not a physical construct of the brain which is in turn a physical construct of the genetic make up of a person... And in turn you are saying that the mind is a separate spirit/soul that is placed inside a physical body at some point and is a sort of inhabitant of the body... without any evidence for any of this... And you won't apply the same spirit/soul life status to unborn children while you favour abortion... And interestingly you seem to be against religion which your whole premis of a body holding a separate spirit/soul is based on!

As with most lefty's, your beliefs and views are a minefield of contradictions!!!

As with most righty's, your language is comprised of jingos, slogans and memes - not really a language for precision.  Accordingly, you misunderstand my question, and go off into some rant that appears to have its origins in homophobia.

The simple question is: WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE that gender is associated with physiology?  You started talking about how gender is related to a penis, and you don't even define 'gender'.  All you've give us so far is    and more words.  But, no evidence.

Chromosomes determine what sex you are ... This has already been extablished!


A man is a man and a woman is a woman.


A man 'thinking' he 'feels like' a woman, is still a man!


It is quite clear!


Although what you post is often clearly waffle!

Tommy Monk wrote:Chromosomes determine what sex you are ... This has already been extablished!

A man is a man and a woman is a woman.

A man 'thinking' he 'feels like' a woman, is still a man!

It is quite clear!

But, we are not talking about sex. We are talking about gender.

Tick-tock...you still have not answered the question.

A man is still a man regardless of whether he 'feels like' he might be a woman or whatever the fuk else his deluded mental state might be telling him that he 'feels like'...


I hope that answers your question... Now try answering my questions instead of waffling bollocks at every given opportunity!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:A man is still a man regardless of whether he 'feels like' he might be a woman or whatever the fuk else his deluded mental state might be telling him that he 'feels like'...

What do you mean by "man"?  A person has a right to be their own agent.  S/he may have been born a male, but enjoy the gender of a female, in which she is not a man.  Again, you're trying to force others to be something they don't want – that’s contrary to being your own agent.  You don't have that right.

Tommy Monk wrote:I hope that answers your question... Now try answering my questions instead of waffling bollocks at every given opportunity!!!???

I didn’t know you had a question.  I see there is perplexity, but it arises from your confusing of physiological sex with gender.

A person has a right to make their own choices, to be their own personality.  That is what we call ‘agency’ – the right to sculpt one's own identity.  Regardless of physiology, if one feels the urge toward another gender, it is their agency to do so. Anyone who tries to deny that to others, is a demagogue.

Right now, we live in a democracy, not a oligarchy.  If people believe in the right of everyone to create their own identity, imposition of identity by force would be unacceptable.

You are admitting that a trans woman is not the same as a real biological woman... Thanks for finally admitting this.


Spaces and competitions designated for real biological women should therefore not be open to people who are not real biological women!


This exclusion of course therefore apply to biological men who 'feel like' they are women.

Tommy Monk wrote:You are admitting that a trans woman is not the same as a real biological woman... Thanks for finally admitting this.

It depends on what you mean: phisiology, or gender?  They are obviously not the same.

Tommy Monk wrote:Spaces and competitions designated for real biological women should therefore not be open to people who are not real biological women!

Why?  Why not reconfigure those "spaces and competitions" to accommodate the human agency in all of us.  We don't need special accommodations for old, flat-earthers.  Let the world accommodate everyone, of every identity.

"Spaces and competitions" are conventional and man-made.  Games should be based on meritocracy.  Rest rooms should be individual and unisex.  The old won't be missed, once adjustments are made in our perceptions.  They should be re-configured to allow for an expanded variety of wills.

They will be, anyway...in time.  Conservatism always fades into the past - it becomes, at best, nostalgia.

You cannot have men competing against women in competitions that are exclusively for women to compete against each other.


Regardless of how these men 'feel like' they are women... They are not women... They are men!


This is just common sense and overwhelming vast majority of women and men think this is right!


Nothing to do with being a conservative or not... It's about whether you have a grasp of reality and what's right or not!

Tommy Monk wrote:You cannot have men competing against women in competitions that are exclusively for women to compete against each other.

Regardless of how these men 'feel like' they are women... They are not women... They are men!

This is just common sense and overwhelming vast majority of women and men think this is right!

Nothing to do with being a conservative or not... It's about whether you have a grasp of reality and what's right or not!

Ahah, the common sense fallacy: that position must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is somehow difficult to imagine.  https://www.google.com/search?q=common+sense+fallacy&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS965US965&oq=common+sense+fall&aqs=chrome.0.0i512j46i512j69i57j0i512j0i22i30l6.12648j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8  

If you want common sense, stop depending on anti-competitive arguments.  Sports are inevitably competitive, and based on meritocracy - ie, superior strength or skills.  Do you not believe in meritocracy?  Should a weight-lifting competition not depend on who can lift more weight?  Should a tennis game not depend on who can hit the ball better?

If you exclude persons who develop stronger bodies, aren't you embarking on a slippery slope?  The next step will be to exile sports contestants from gyms?  Like performance enhancing drugs, any strength-training, in gyms or otherwise, will become taboo if we start prohibiting superior bodies.

Alternatively, if we prohibit the basis of sex, are we not saying to young women that they cannot participate in joint sports like coed football...simply because they have ovaries?  Lately, women have been participating in American football games, as kickers and in certain non-contact positions.  Are you saying they do not belong?

What is the message you want to convey?

If there was a competition to see who could produce the most bullshit... Then you would win every time... Even against a whole team of bulls and their collective mass of shit...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

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!

Thank you for correcting me. It is not a choice, but biological persuasion. Nevertheless, it's an offense to gays/trans not to respect their gender choice.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:They are not transformed... They are just men in drag masquerading as women.

And most of the women who "transform" into men are still women with cervix and vagina and womb etc... They are not men .. they just try to dress and look like men... But are still women.

 What if they were given a defective heart, or were born blind?  I can hear your uncharitable chant now: tsk, tsk...you were born that way, you should never change, you sightless pervert.  May you bump into a thousand chairs!!!

I've heard it, but it went like this:

Q: How do parents punish their blind kids?
A: They re-arrange the furniture

There are many of them, gels.  Here: https://worstjokesever.com/disabled

Sign in school library board:  "To the guy in the wheelchair who stole my camouflage jacket… You can hide, but you can’t run."

Q: What do u call a disabled kid with a gun?
A: Special forces

Q: Why do midgets laugh when they run?
A: Because the grass tickles their balls.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:You cannot have men competing against women in competitions that are exclusively for women to compete against each other.

Regardless of how these men 'feel like' they are women... They are not women... They are men!

This is just common sense and overwhelming vast majority of women and men think this is right!

Nothing to do with being a conservative or not... It's about whether you have a grasp of reality and what's right or not!

Ahah, the common sense fallacy: that position must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is somehow difficult to imagine.  https://www.google.com/search?q=common+sense+fallacy&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS965US965&oq=common+sense+fall&aqs=chrome.0.0i512j46i512j69i57j0i512j0i22i30l6.12648j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8  

If you want common sense, stop depending on anti-competitive arguments.  Sports are inevitably competitive, and based on meritocracy - ie, superior strength or skills.  Do you not believe in meritocracy?  Should a weight-lifting competition not depend on who can lift more weight?  Should a tennis game not depend on who can hit the ball better?

If you exclude persons who develop stronger bodies, aren't you embarking on a slippery slope?  The next step will be to exile sports contestants from gyms?  Like performance enhancing drugs, any strength-training, in gyms or otherwise, will become taboo if we start prohibiting superior bodies.

Alternatively, if we prohibit the basis of sex, are we not saying to young women that they cannot participate in joint sports like coed football...simply because they have ovaries?  Lately, women have been participating in American football games, as kickers and in certain non-contact positions.  Are you saying they do not belong?

What is the message you want to convey?

There you are, you've admitted it, sports are based on meritocracy ie superior strength! Physiologically the average male is stronger in all aspects than a female, his bones are denser, muscles larger, blood exchange faster etc etc. how can an average female compete against an average male who having reached puberty while retaining all those advantages doesn't matter if its contact or non contact sports, one is dangerous the latter unfair, would you race against someone on a motorbike and say its fair?
An MME trans woman fought an MME biological woman the outcome was predictable, the transwoman fractured the biological woman's skull in the first round, if there are rounds and didn't stop hitting her until she was eventually KO'd. Why do we have graded sports if you think the stongest or most skilled should always win and there's no difference physiologically why don't we allow feather weight men to box super heavyweight men? If we don't allow that for obvious physical reasons then transwomen should not be allowed to compete with biological women for the same reasons.

I agree with you.  It's not that people are unfair, but conventions have been developed that are unfair.  There should be unisex bathrooms, so that there is privacy for everyone.

As for competitions, rather than leave some folks out in the cold there should be a redrawing of lines and rules so that the competition is equitable. Games and their rules are man-made, you know.  It won't be a true meritocracy - they don't put plow horses in thoroughbred horse races. But if you admit that up front, it will be going about it honestly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI6qvQtrTU8

One of the trans activists who heckled the education secretary Nadhim Zahawi on his visit to Warwick University is the son of Labour politicians Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, it has emerged.

Around 30 LGBT+ activists hounded the education secretary with shouts of "Tory scum" as he visited the university on Friday.

Members of the university's LGBT+ group Warwick Pride brandished flags and placards as they demonstrated against him during his trip to the university's conservative association.

Joel Cooper, the son of the shadow home secretary and the former shadow chancellor, was videoed interrupting Mr Zahawi's Q&A to challenge him over his stance on trans rights.

The video was shared on Warwick Labour's Instagram page.

Mr Cooper was cheered by fellow Labour activists, before he later shared the clip to his Instagram story, Guido Fawkes reported.

On Twitter, he claimed he and other activists had been "blacklisted" from the event and accused the Conservative Association of "censorship".

A statement from Warwick Pride said members were upset at Mr Zahawi for his "role" in "institutional transphobia" and because he used the term "adult human female".


https://www.lbc.co.uk/watch-videos/nadhim-zahawi-protest-warwick-tories/



Fukking cretin!

Tommy Monk wrote:Joel Cooper, the son of the shadow home secretary and the former shadow chancellor, was videoed interrupting Mr Zahawi's Q&A to challenge him over his stance on trans rights.

If it was a Q & A, how can Mr. Cooper be "interrupting"?  Isn't that the point of a Q & A – to get answers to questions?

Perhaps what Mr. Zahawi intended was a 'staged' exposition of one side only, under a faux guise of Q & A.
The blacklisting charge supports that narrative: why blacklist questioners if you don’t intend to blacklist answers?

Mr. Zahawi argues his side with some urgency: “We will never deny biology…”  However, this completely misses the point.  It isn’t a matter of denying biology, but an open question of what biology means to gender.  They are two different things and Mr. Zahawi has yet to prove otherwise.

He turned up mob handed and their naaty hostile group were heckling and shouting "Tory scum"... Not there to be in any way a participant of any orderly Q&A session.


The MP had to be led away by security for his own safety... Although I think it should have been the hostile mob who should have been led away and even arrested by the police... They could have been arrested for section 5 public order offences!

Tommy Monk wrote:He turned up mob handed and their naaty hostile group were heckling and shouting "Tory scum"... Not there to be in any way a participant of any orderly Q&A session.

The MP had to be led away by security for his own safety... Although I think it should have been the hostile mob who should have been led away and even arrested by the police... They could have been arrested for section 5 public order offences!

That's nothing.  You ought to have seen our Republicans on January 6th, conducting their attempted overthrow of the American government.


And Republicans called that '...just tourists, on a quiet visit the capital'.

The son of the shadow home secretary... Yvette Cooper... Who can't define what a woman is...


"...The Shadow Home Secretary refused on three occasion to offer a definition..."



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10596027/Labour-say-woman-is.html



Yeah... These cretins think a woman has a beard and cock & balls!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:The son of the shadow home secretary... Yvette Cooper... Who can't define what a woman is...

"...The Shadow Home Secretary refused on three occasion to offer a definition..."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10596027/Labour-say-woman-is.html

Yeah... These cretins think a woman has a beard and cock & balls!!!

Are you talking about a woman physiologically, or the female gender?  You have to clarify what you're talking about.  

Talking about what a woman is...

Tommy Monk wrote:Talking about what a woman is...

...then get off the topic of gender. They are two different things.

I don't know why evolution came up with the transgender individual, but it did and if we're going to be fair, this is their society too. Accommodate them, while you're out shouting about the rights of women to powder their noses, or play basketball with insularity.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." These are the goals...now respect them.

It's you who keeps on splitting hairs Quill, in your attempts to try to confuse the debate...


A woman is an adult female human!


It's very simple!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:It's you who keeps on splitting hairs Quill, in your attempts to try to confuse the debate...

A woman is an adult female human!

It's very simple!!!

You admit that those people exist, yet you call it "splitting hairs"?? Could it be that you are wanting to disenfranchise that other hair??

I do not deny that there are a very very small number of men who try to claim that they are women, because "they feel like they are actually real women" albeit the fact that they are really actually men with beards and cocks and balls etc...


So the only thing that is being disenfranchised is the absurd claim that men are women!!!


And I'm also amused by your citing of Thomas Jeffersons... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."... As he was the owner of more slaves than any other slave owning US president!!!


And the quote has no mention of women, or women being in any way equal... And no mention of men claiming to be women, or any of these deluded individuals being in any way the same as actual women!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:I do not deny that there are a very very small number of men who try to claim that they are women, because "they feel like they are actually real women" albeit the fact that they are really actually men with beards and cocks and balls etc...

So the only thing that is being disenfranchised is the absurd claim that men are women!!!

It's not a claim, but a person behind the claim.  So, what do you think is the reason someone might make that claim?  And why?

Tommy Monk wrote:And I'm also amused by your citing of Thomas Jeffersons... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."... As he was the owner of more slaves than any other slave owning US president!!!

And the quote has no mention of women, or women being in any way equal... And no mention of men claiming to be women, or any of these deluded individuals being in any way the same as actual women!!!

Jefferson was speaking of mankind, not the masculine gender.  His use of the term 'man' should be read in that sense, or it is meaningless.  However, there were other disenfranchised people in addition to blacks.  Jefferson was personally guilty of duplicity in this, I agree.  It took another 70-130-years to figure this out.

But this wasn't a statement just of ole' Tom, but a letter to King George III signed by many, many persons - the fact that America had some work to do to catch up, notwithstanding.  It was a statement of an Englishman's values.

As such, how do you feel about leaving someone - gay, trans or otherwise - out of the equation?  Can you make an argument, or are you willing to admit that you simply believe in the message of Orwell's Animal Farm: "…some pigs are more equal than others"?

It's gays this time…and I’ve seen that you’re down on Africans.  But I'm interested in your argument, because it might be Jews or Asians next time.

1. Mental illness

2. Not leaving anyone out of the equation... There are already rights that we all have... We are all equal in that, but they are not more equal, which is what some are arguing for... If anything, it is women who are being disenfranchised by men claiming that they are women and demanding to be allowed in to facilities and competitions that are specifically only for actual women!

Tommy Monk wrote:1. Mental illness

Mental illness is a diagnosis of medical science. Any science, including medicine, is based on factual findings. On what facts do you base the conclusion that transgenderism is mental illness? If it's only opinion, then it's not deserving of the respect we give important pronouncements. There has got to be an independent, factual basis for all scientific conclusions. I don’t think you have one.

Tommy Monk wrote:2. Not leaving anyone out of the equation... There are already tights that we all have... We are all equal in that, but they are not more equal, which is what some are arguing for... If anything, it is women who are being disenfranchised by men claiming that they are women and demanding to be allowed in to facilities and competitions that are specifically only for actual women!

Society is a legal arrangement.  One uses norms, regulations and laws to make such arrangements, which we call rules, sometimes laws.  Equality depends upon how you arrange society.  If you arrange society so that one group has more advantage than some other group, you have inequality.

All the trans are doing, is using the arrangements you have made.  In the process, it is making you aware that the arrangements are not equal.  There are two different kinds of lavatories, men, women, but no trans.  There are two different kinds of tennis, basketball or softball - whatever sport - one for men, one for women, but no trans.  Etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.  The trans simply participate according to the arrangements you have made.

Now, if you're going incorporate equality as a value, you can't leave anyone out – that’s the definition of equality.  Yet you have made no alternative provision in your arrangements for the trans.  So, they join the play the way society, yourselves, have set it up!  They use whatever lavatory you arrange, and they play in whatever sport you arrange...etc.

I think the trans are the ones who are playing on an even keel.  They don't complain.  They do what society has arranged, joining in where they are most comfortable.  Ironically, we are dealing with YOUR complaints, as to how YOU arranged society, and it is up to YOU to make arrangements that settle YOUR discomfort.

The trans have done nothing but conform to your arrangements.  They are innocently compliant.  It is YOU who are trying to disenfranchise them.  It is YOU who want them to be left out of the game, to sit on the sidelines while the game is played, because YOU have not made the proper adjustments in YOUR arrangements to include them.  SHAME.

1. Again, it's quite simple, it is not normal for a man to start "to think" that he "feels like" a woman... When he is clearly a man with beard and cock & balls and xy chromosomes that determine that those individuals are male... And as I've said before, the mind is a construct of the brain, which is a construct of the body, which is a construct of its genetic and DNA make up etc... So, for a male to start to "think" he is a female, is either a disfunction of normal mental cognitive behaviour, ie a mental disorder/illness... Or you are getting back into the realms of the belief that a person has a separate mind/spirit/soul that is an inhabitant of a body instead of being a direct construct and part of a physical body as is designated by their genetic/DNA/chromosomes etc...


2. These people are putting themselves outside of the normal run of things... A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man... No matter how much they might 'feel like' they are something that they even know themselves that they quite clearly biologically are not!

Tommy Monk wrote:...it is not normal for a man to start "to think" that he "feels like" a woman...

Obviously, it’s something of great significance, then.  It means we had better start rethinking what is normal.  Rethinking our paradigm is not new: we had to rethink things when evidence showed us that the world was round, instead of flat.

“Normal” is a word that we use to describe our perception of the world.  If evidence shows us that our theory of normal needs revising, then we change it.  If we find anomalies in our description, we alter it to more accurately reflect reality.  It’s time we change our perception of ‘gender’.

It's not dysfunction, but increasing clarity.

Tommy Monk wrote:These people are putting themselves outside of the normal run of things... A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man...

Imagine if someone had said to Christopher Columbus, “you’re putting yourself outside of the normal run of things…the earth is flat, you’ll fall off!”  

Just as ol’ Chris didn’t limit himself to old world thinking, gender does not limit itself to the physiology of the sexes.  You limit yourself to sexual divisions, Tommy, not gender categories.  Expand your thinking: gender is much broader, more comprehensive than physical dimensions of sex.

Tommy Monk wrote:No matter how much they might 'feel like' they are something that they even know themselves that they quite clearly biologically are not!

You limit yourself in other ways, too.  You call feelings, biology!  Is ‘love’ biology?  Is ‘patriotism’ biology?  Is ‘appreciation for art’ biology?  Apparently, it’s all biology.

If all we are doing in those things is following biology, well we might as well start controlling the ‘good’ society by DNA altering.  Once we map the ‘anger’ gene, we can start creating armies and police forces.  Once we map the ‘curious’ gene, we can start creating artists and scientists.  Once we map the ‘boring’ gene, we can start creating accountants.  Of course, we will have to develop a spirit of socialism and social management – how else will we intelligently direct our political and economic existence – so we will require a gene for dictators.

And who will conduct these tests?  Whose ‘feelings’ should we consult in order to match which gene to which ‘feelings’…in order to best arrange society?

Oh, I’m sorry, are we getting into judgments?

Waffle...

Tommy, either we're locked into our biology, or we are not.  Which is it?     You say "waffle" whenever you are stuck for an answer.  How 'bout exercising some thought.

Tommy Monk wrote:And as I've said before, the mind is a construct of the brain, which is a construct of the body, which is a construct of its genetic and DNA make up etc...

You are pursuing a theory of biological determinism.  Any theory of pure determinism denies 'free will', and/or even any kind of extemporaneous thought or motion.  Any exception must have an explanation.  Epicurious suggested a spontaneous 'swerve' in order to break up the monotonous predestination of determinism.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/3065592

Now, you are proposing a biological predestination - everything is biologically determined.  Your sort of determinism even denies the flexibility of thought - there is no 'free-will' - or the influence of experience.  It is altogether biologically predetermined.

There is no proof of where (on the spectrum) gender falls, but nor is there proof of biological determinism.  As a matter of fact, where is consciousness?  Is it in the head, or the chest...or outside the body altogether, as hypothesized in The Matrix?  Or, it may well be that the reactive part of consciousness resides elsewhere.

They are all good research questions...when we develop the technology. But as of now, we have to make some assumptions, and I don’t buy biological determinism. To fix a point of gender is like fixing a point of love…or patriotism…or shame. Maybe it’s all in the big toe, or stored in a closet somewhere. All I know is it’s real, readily available, and there for anyone to draw upon.

Free will certainly allows any bloke to dress up as a woman and put on a wig and call himself whatever he wants etc... But everybody else's free will allows them to say that this is a man dressed up as a woman wearing a wig!


You cannot disenfranchise honesty and common sense or truth!!!


No matter how much you waffle spurious arguments to the contrary!!!


A man in a dress is always still going to be a man in a dress!!!


A man in a dress is never going to be a woman!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Free will certainly allows any bloke to dress up as a woman and put on a wig and call himself whatever he wants etc... But everybody else's free will allows them to say that this is a man dressed up as a woman wearing a wig!

But didn't you say...

Tommy Monk wrote:And as I've said before, the mind is a construct of the brain, which is a construct of the body, which is a construct of its genetic and DNA make up etc...

So, if everything is a construct of DNA, then any gender he chooses is is a construct of DNA, and thus natural.  And that means "...for a male to start to "think" he is a female, is..." natural as well.  

There is no such thing as "honesty and common sense or truth!!!"  Everything is "genetic and DNA", remember?  

Tommy Monk wrote:A man in a dress is always still going to be a man in a dress!!!

And he is predetermined by DNA, according to you.

Tommy Monk wrote:A man in a dress is never going to be a woman!!!

It doesn't matter, because "the mind is a construct of the brain, which is a construct of the body, which is a construct of its genetic and DNA make up etc..."

…and that means any decision he makes, he is acting according to his DNA.  A man in a dress is therefore quite natural.

You've out done yourself with that load of waffle this time!

Tommy Monk wrote:You've out done yourself with that load of waffle this time!

But...you don't see anything wrong with it, eh? I've tried to use your words as much as possible, so as to assure I am accurately representing your theory.

To repeat, in terms we can all understand, you say: DNA -> genetics -> body -> brain -> behavior. To wit: a trans has no choice but to be what s/he is - a trans. His or her DNA compels the behavior.

Therefore, there must be more than two genders in nature, as so many people reflect such multiples. There is man/woman, yes, but also man/man and woman/women as well. And that may not be the end of the permutations.

These combinations are compelled by a chain of causes, leading back to DNA. So, our proverbial “man in a dress” is simply following his DNA...which is to say, his nature...which is to conclude: a "man in a dress" is perfectly natural. S/he's not trying to be a woman, as long as s/he's taken to be accepted and normal.

No... I was putting those hypothesis to you, as it was you as you seemed to be suggesting that the mind was a separate spirit/sous/entity, as in a sort of religious belief way, but you dismiss religion as nonsense, and dismiss the concept of the life spirit/soul/entity being present at conception until some point until advanced pregnancy, if at all... That is until a man starts to think he feels like a woman trapped inside a mans body... When you then dismiss the DNA/genetic/chromosome and actual biological physical reality of this being a man with a beard and cock & balls and start down the road of someone having a mind which is separate spirit/soul/entity again...


You can't have it both ways!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:No... I was putting those hypothesis to you, as it was you as you seemed to be suggesting that the mind was a separate spirit/sous/entity, as in a sort of religious belief way, but you dismiss religion as nonsense, and dismiss the concept of the life spirit/soul/entity being present at conception until some point until advanced  pregnancy, if at all...

I have repeatedly said, I don't know.  I find the subject fascinating, but I am committed to no particular theory.

All I’ve said in this regard is, no one knows.  Obviously, a sizable population of LGBTQ and trans exists on this earth, and that doesn’t happen unless DNA permits it.

Tommy Monk wrote:That is until a man starts to think he feels like a woman trapped inside a mans body... When you then dismiss the DNA/genetic/chromosome and actual biological physical reality of this being a man with a beard and cock & balls and start down the road of someone having a mind which is separate spirit/soul/entity again...

You can't have it both ways!!!

Nor can you.  You are either saying that DNA is decisive, or that the biological body is decisive.  That’s why I keep saying, we are talking about gender, not sex.

Right now, you are talking about “a beard and cock & balls” - which in the DNA context doesn’t discount LGBTQ and trans – but in the pejorative, is limited to boys.  You are drawing an equivalency between genitalia and gender. You are saying biological sex is determinative.

The DNA is a much broader concept, and includes the many biological permutations that occur quite regularly…and naturally.  The DNA signature has room for, and includes LGBTQ and transsexuals.  And, “a beard and cock & balls” doesn’t tell us anything.

Mental illness exhibits itself in many ways...

Tommy Monk wrote:Mental illness exhibits itself in many ways...

True, but we are not talking about mental illness.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Mental illness exhibits itself in many ways...

True, but we are not talking about mental illness.

Yes we are... There's nothing wrong with their bodies... It's the mind that is getting things wrong in that there are men with beads and cocks who think they are really women... And women with tits and vaginas who think they're really men...


Their bodies are fine... The problem is in their minds!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

True, but we are not talking about mental illness.

Yes we are... There's nothing wrong with their bodies... It's the mind that is getting things wrong in that there are men with beads and cocks who think they are really women... And women with tits and vaginas who think they're really men...

Their bodies are fine... The problem is in their minds!

Just because you don't agree with them, or you find their gender choice objectionable?  I don't agree with Conservatives or Republicans. I find their choices objectionable!  Does that mean that ipso facto they are mentally ill?

The problem is with YOU, not them.  It's YOUR opinion that is under question.  It is your position that is under challenge...calling for change.

Normally, when someone is mentally ill they experience issues and difficulties.  In fact, they are not experiencing issues and difficulties.  YOU have problems with the trans - their use of women's dressing/powder rooms.  YOU have issues with them engaging in women's sports.  The whole issue is happening in your court.

Everything in your logic suggests it is you who is mentally ill.

Men are not women and women are not men.

Tommy Monk wrote:Men are not women and women are not men.

I agree...if you are not talking about gender.  Gender has nothing to do with how one pees...or otherwise uses the genitals. That is biology. Gender is different.  If a born male, feels more feminine as she matures, or vice-versa, it's quite plausible.

But, in terms of personal arrangements, it's also really not your concern.  You are not involved. If contemporary social arrangements, in terms of facilities or sports, are not suitable, you should urge changing the arrangements.  After all, they were made with certain assumptions, which have turned out to be invalid.

What is the point in going on under false pretenses?  When we found out the earth was not flat, we changed the maps and updated trade routes.  Now that we discover that gender is not binary, we should change the arrangements.