Really?The whole "cis" thing has boiled my piss for quite some time.
Really?
I've never paid it enough attention to care. How can you even get worked up about it?
Nope. Still don't seem to be able to give a shit about it.Who decided I needed a prefix? Did I get a say? Did the 99% of humanity who are "cis" get a say?
Cunt sounds like a good definition.Nope. Still don't seem to be able to give a shit about it.
Anyone can define me however they like - it's not going to change anything in my life.
Agree.Cunt sounds like a good definition.
The wife got invited to her bosses last day of term party, which turns out is basically an lbgt pissup and they invite her cos shes straight and pretty.
So no one bats an eyelid at so many senior staff in a girls school being lesbian...which is whatever.
But I picked her up and the frickin faces on them, there are two types of lesbians, men haters and men flirters.
The short haired fat ones go off in a huff and the girly ones are all over me cos Im the only man in the room.
Then a black gay guy turned up.
Seriously it was like Housewives by the sea....big fucking bling house and champagne bottles eveywhere.
Good news.Trans women face potential women’s rugby ban over safety concerns
World Rugby is considering banning trans women from playing women’s rugby because of significant safety concerns that have emerged following recent researchwww.theguardian.com
@Wij
Went through and checked that quickly- the guardian uses "trans woman and biological woman" multiple times throughout the article. The only mention of "assigned" seemed to be when they quoted from a document (and the document provided clarity on the biological nature).Even when it's admitting it's wrong though the Guardian keeps using 'assigned male at birth' language though. They don't gp through male puberty because of what some midwife wrote on a form for fuck's sake.
As World Rugby’s working group notes, players who are assigned male at birth and whose puberty and development is influenced by androgens/testosterone “are stronger by 25%-50%, are 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than players who are assigned female at birth (who do not experience an androgen-influenced development).”
Jeesus christ Wij. You're rabid. In that paragraph they're clearly paraphrasing from the World Rugby working group notes and then finishing off with actual quote.They were happy to use the language outside of a quote before transitioning into one. It's not anger. It's just that using deliberately misleading terms is wrong.
You don't find 'assigned male at birth' ridiculous?Jeesus christ Wij. You're rabid. In that paragraph they're clearly paraphrasing from the World Rugby working group notes and then finishing off with actual quote.
For the entirity of rest of the article they use trans- and biological-.
You're verging on Job levels of bonkers obsession over this m8. What with trying to find fault sentence-by-sentence then going "aha!" when there's nothing really there
I'm specifically talking about your accusation against the guardian for their use of language in the article - which is false.You don't find 'assigned male at birth' ridiculous?
Separately from the above:You don't find 'assigned male at birth' ridiculous?
Separately from the above:
1) For sex, yes.
2) For gender, no.
When you separate that out, is it that hard?
I mean, that's first-page-of-the-thread stuff.
Maybe I'm holding them to a higher standard but it was used outside of a direct quote and not challenged. Maybe an explainer for the readers about what 'assigned male at birth' actually means would be good journalistic practice.I'm specifically talking about your accusation against the guardian for their use of language in the article - which is false.
I'm happy to talk to you about this wij but only if you respond to the points I make, rather than simply pushing down other avenues.
Clearly the guardian's use of language in this article was absolutely fine. So why not just say that?
It's obvious that when they sex a child at birth they are talking about sex. No one is even attempting to guess what their gender-thetan is and only trans activists pretend that they are.Separately from the above:
1) For sex, yes.
2) For gender, no.
When you separate that out, is it that hard?
I mean, that's first-page-of-the-thread stuff.
I don't see that tbh. I see it absolutely as a fringe ask.And before you go "meh", this is a. not the view of a few extremists, its being pursued as the only narrative
JK Rowling is being hung out to dry by this 'fringe' including the 3 people whose careers she created.I don't see that tbh. I see it absolutely as a fringe ask.
I don't see that tbh. I see it absolutely as a fringe ask.
Their statement on their legal reform (which lags ROI, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, who've not fallen apart at the seams as far as I can tell) seems perfectly reasonable and proportionate:And you're absolutely wrong. Sorry, just go and read the proposed Scottish government Self-ID plan. Biology isn't considered at all. In fact the only way self-ID can work is if biology is completely discounted
The legal context of the other laws around sex-based rights in those countries is different so a direct comparison can be made. What rights a recognition certificate actually affords is a function of other legislation.Their statement on their legal reform (which lags ROI, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, who've not fallen apart at the seams as far as I can tell) seems perfectly reasonable and proportionate:
Statement on gender recognition
Statement on reform of the gender recognition in Scotland.www.gov.scot