Is this what society has come to?

[Scouse]

Sure. Here's the solution. Every patient gets to elect whether they require same-sex treatment or same-gender treatment

Here's another one. You get treated by a healthcare professional and in todays NHS you're happy that you're getting treated despite your misgivings and fears about potential criminality?

 

[Jupitus]

Alright - SHUT UP FOR 5 MINUTES WHILE i PUT THIS SHIT IN THE RIGHT THREAD, KAPISCH???????

 

[Jupitus]

OK, CARRY ON CUNTS

 

[Jupitus]

Actually, that was a pain in the ass - wondering if I should start slapping peeps for not thinking where to post - wadda ya reckon, @Deebs ? That was about 60 posts I had to move

 

[Wij]

Here's another one. You get treated by a healthcare professional and in todays NHS you're happy that you're getting treated despite your misgivings and fears about potential criminality?

So, not willing to compromise then. Fuck 'em. Disabled bitches.

 

[Aoami]

Actually, that was a pain in the ass - wondering if I should start slapping peeps for not thinking where to post - wadda ya reckon, @Deebs ? That was about 60 posts I had to move

Slap me daddy

 

[Gwadien]

So yeah, Biden fucked up...

 

[Scouse]

So, not willing to compromise then. Fuck 'em. Disabled bitches.

Very small number of disabled women in very niche circumstance being used to justify denying unrelated rights to hundreds of thousands of law abiding trans people nationwide.

Sorry @Wij - I'm all for compromise. But you ain't. You're zero tolerance because you hate them.

That's fine. But why not just say it?

 

[Scouse]

OK, CARRY ON CUNTS

Didn't see this...

 

[Wij]

Very small number of disabled women in very niche circumstance being used to justify denying unrelated rights to hundreds of thousands of law abiding trans people nationwide.

Sorry @Wij - I'm all for compromise. But you ain't. You're zero tolerance because you hate them.

That's fine. But why not just say it?

I literally offered a compromise that seems perfectly fair to me. What's your actual objection to that proposal for people like her getting intimate care? Tell me what's wrong with what I proposed instead of going on about things I didn't say.

 

[Scouse]

I literally offered a compromise that seems perfectly fair to me. What's your actual objection to that proposal for people like her getting intimate care? Tell me what's wrong with what I proposed instead of going on about things I didn't say.

Fair enough. Missed it.

So, every patient? Or just disabled ones?

Frankly - in a utopian NHS I'd be behind that. But in today's NHS, no. It's a luxury we can't afford. And certainly not a big enough issue to bar trans people being able to self-identify. We need the bloody nurses - and nurses should be seen as professionals, not "blokes who are potential rapists" - like that disabled girl said.


On a related but separate note - I'm for removing single-sex wards btw. After a few long discussions with two doctors and a couple of nurses on this subject - single sex wards are shit. Men and women rub off against each other (don't say it) and make for a healthier environment all round. The single sex ward shit is a hangover from a more puritan past. This would also help with logistics.

 

[Wij]

Fair enough. Missed it.

So, every patient? Or just disabled ones?

Frankly - in a utopian NHS I'd be behind that. But in today's NHS, no. It's a luxury we can't afford. And certainly not a big enough issue to bar trans people being able to self-identify. We need the bloody nurses - and nurses should be seen as professionals, not "blokes who are potential rapists" - like that disabled girl said.


On a related but separate note - I'm for removing single-sex wards btw. After a few long discussions with two doctors and a couple of nurses on this subject - single sex wards are shit. Men and women rub off against each other (don't say it) and make for a healthier environment all round. The single sex ward shit is a hangover from a more puritan past. This would also help with logistics.

It was for intimate medical examinations and stuff only. You don't think women have a right to say 'women only please'? A little bit of dignity and choice is not too much to ask surely? That's hardly utopia.

 

[Tom]

Interested to know why you think this?

Because in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter. It's no different than claiming gay scout leaders are a risk to children.

 

[Scouse]

It was for intimate medical examinations and stuff only. You don't think women have a right to say 'women only please'? A little bit of dignity and choice is not too much to ask surely? That's hardly utopia.

Why women? Do men get afforded that "dignity"? Or do you hold a sexist 18th century worldview that women are weak and need special protections whilst men can and should "man up".

That girl lost a fair chuck (but not all of) my respect when she basically referred to all men as potential rapists.

But no, I clearly stated I'd be behind it but we're so utterly fucked for resources in the NHS I don't think we should have to pander to a "potential rapist" worldview. Pragmatically she should be prepared to potentially start looking at nurses as what they really are - professionals who care for people.

 

[Wij]

Why women? Do men get afforded that "dignity"? Or do you hold a sexist 18th century worldview that women are weak and need special protections whilst men can and should "man up".

That girl lost a fair chuck (but not all of) my respect when she basically referred to all men as potential rapists.

But no, I clearly stated I'd be behind it but we're so utterly fucked for resources in the NHS I don't think we should have to pander to a "potential rapist" worldview. Pragmatically she should be prepared to potentially start looking at nurses as what they really are - professionals who care for people.

I said same-sex so men could request it too.

So basically, you aren't willing to compromise for a small minority of medical settings? At all?

Scouse: These are niche problems that can be accommodated easily with small compromises.

Also Scouse: There will be no compromises.

 

[Aoami]

Because in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter. It's no different than claiming gay scout leaders are a risk to children.

Disagree. World Rugby for instance have banned trans women from playing women's rugby because it's dangerous. Wheres the culture war there?

 

[Raven]

Nothing wrong with this at all


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqRJkNIwW-A

 

[Scouse]

I said same-sex so men could request it too.

So basically, you aren't willing to compromise for a small minority of medical settings? At all?

 

[Scouse]

@Juptius, @MYstIC G can you delete the above and this please? Mistake

 

[Scouse]

I said same-sex so men could request it too.

And yet you NEVER use men in your examples. Yet vulnerable men do exist.

So basically, you aren't willing to compromise for a small minority of medical settings? At all?

So, just to show you, once again:

Frankly - in a utopian NHS I'd be behind that.

But no, I clearly stated I'd be behind it

Like I said, more than once - I'd be behind this irrelevant-to-topic niche argument.


However, the whole point @Wij is that we're still talking about niche topics. Stuff that happens in cases that you can count on a couple of people's fingers:

There'll always be a handful of outlying horrifying stories you can point at. That doesn't justify not making changes for the law-abiding majority.

Your arguments are still unconvincing. There's no weight behind them. There are outlying cases (women's sports) that can be fixed separately - that cannot be used to justify holding up these changes.

Your argument is weak as shit m8. Sorry.


I love talking with you @Wij - but you keep saying "I'm not compromising" - and I hate having to quote myself back to you just to remind you where I agreed with you multiple times. It just shows that you're ignoring what I'm actually saying.

The reality is - you're not prepared to compromise. You want to use niche outlier cases to deny small changes that will make hundreds of thousands of people happier because <bad shit might happen> to a small number of people when people act in a criminal fashion. (And bad shit does already happen when people act like criminals anyway - we can't stop that).

 

[Wij]

You're picking and choosing different bits from different situations. For example, women's sports doesn't require ANY criminal behaviour for it to be unfair to women and girls. Don't bring arguments that are relevant to one situation into those of another.

Want to argue about medical exams, stick with that. Want to argue about sports, stick with that. I made proposals for a few. You keep reverting to scattergun.

 

[Scouse]

You're picking and choosing different bits from different situations. For example, women's sports doesn't require ANY criminal behaviour for it to be unfair to women and girls. Don't bring arguments that are relevant to one situation into those of another.

Want to argue about medical exams, stick with that. Want to argue about sports, stick with that. I made proposals for a few. You keep reverting to scattergun.

I'm not picking and choosing bits from different situations. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

To go back to quoting myself (and to remind you that I've said this multiple times):

There are outlying cases (women's sports) that can be fixed separately

So there. I've answered 1) your medical exams argument 2) your women's sports argument and 3) your criminality argument.

And taken separately, or together, they're weak as shit - and cannot justify holding up reforms for hundreds of thousands of people.

If you want to continue I think a bit of quid-pro-quo would be fair - answer the argument I've consistently made (and repeated in the sentence above).

 

[Wij]

I'm not picking and choosing bits from different situations. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

To go back to quoting myself (and to remind you that I've said this multiple times):


So there. I've answered 1) your medical exams argument 2) your women's sports argument and 3) your criminality argument.

And taken separately, or together, they're weak as shit - and cannot justify holding up reforms for hundreds of thousands of people.

If you want to continue I think a bit of quid-pro-quo would be fair - answer the argument I've consistently made (and repeated in the sentence above).

It's not an argument, that's why I'm not answering it. It's a statement that 'It will be fine'.

What's your proposal for women's sports then if I missed it?

And prisons?

 

[Scouse]

It's not an argument, that's why I'm not answering it. It's a statement that 'It will be fine'.

Absolutely it is an argument. It's first and foremost a statement of acknowledgement that there are issues.

Those issues exist and are already being worked through by the relevant authorities - but in no way justify holding up the reforms for such a huge number of people.

There's nothing else to talk about.

 

[DaGaffer]

Absolutely it is an argument. It's first and foremost a statement of acknowledgement that there are issues.

Those issues exist and are already being worked through by the relevant authorities - but in no way justify holding up the reforms for such a huge number of people.

There's nothing else to talk about.

It's not a huge number of people. It will become a huge number of people if trans-activists get their way, which is the whole point of self-ID lobbying. This isn't about what's needed, it's the playbook of a religion or a political movement.

 

[Wij]

Absolutely it is an argument. It's first and foremost a statement of acknowledgement that there are issues.

Those issues exist and are already being worked through by the relevant authorities - but in no way justify holding up the reforms for such a huge number of people.

There's nothing else to talk about.

So, no proposal. You already admitted that at least one example in sports is really unfair on women. There will be many and introducing self-id will make them much more likely. Therefore I'd like you to suggest how we mitigate them with an actual proposal BEFORE we make the situation worse.

Otherwise you are just 'It will be fine' ing...

 

[Scouse]

It's not a huge number of people. It will become a huge number of people if trans-activists get their way, which is the whole point of self-ID lobbying. This isn't about what's needed, it's the playbook of a religion or a political movement.

1) We did the numbers ages ago - it's small in percentage terms but large in absolute numbers for a 70 million population.

2) If it will, as you say, "become" a "huge" number of people then that is indicative of a significant underlying demand, no?

I mean, no demand = nobody will bother, right?


It doesn't matter @DaGaffer - if people want to self-identify then why do you care? We can fix the sports thing (and the people who control sports are best placed to do that), we can fix refuges etc. We can't fix criminality - that's going to happen anyway.

This is just another step down the road that gays pioneered. And the existence of gays has gone very quickly from "mobs on streets beating suspected gays to death" to "who cares"...

 

[DaGaffer]

1) We did the numbers ages ago - it's small in percentage terms but large in absolute numbers for a 70 million population.

2) If it will, as you say, "become" a "huge" number of people then that is indicative of a significant underlying demand, no?

I mean, no demand = nobody will bother, right?


It doesn't matter @DaGaffer - if people want to self-identify then why do you care? We can fix the sports thing (and the people who control sports are best placed to do that), we can fix refuges etc. We can't fix criminality - that's going to happen anyway.

This is just another step down the road that gays pioneered. And the existence of gays has gone very quickly from "mobs on streets beating suspected gays to death" to "who cares"...

Because I don't like cults. We're finally putting a dent in religion and here's another wholly irrational trend to replace it.

And no, it is NOT the same thing as gay rights (as lots of gay people are starting to realise), being gay didn't involve getting everyone else to agree objective reality doesn't exist.

 

[Wij]

Because I don't like cults. We're finally putting a dent in religion and here's another wholly irrational trend to replace it.

And no, it is NOT the same thing as gay rights (as lots of gay people are starting to realise), being gay didn't involve getting everyone else to agree objective reality doesn't exist.

And many gays and lesbians object to having their sexuality described as transphobic.

 

[Scouse]

Because I don't like cults. We're finally putting a dent in religion and here's another wholly irrational trend to replace it.

And no, it is NOT the same thing as gay rights (as lots of gay people are starting to realise), being gay didn't involve getting everyone else to agree objective reality doesn't exist.

Finally we get to what I think is the crux of your and @Wij's argument.

Neither of you believe this is a thing. And as long as you both feel like that then all of the other arguments can carry no weight.

All I can say is that there's clearly, globally, a phenomenom that causes people to act or want to act like this. And regardless of "objective reality" as defined by science and gametes there's an "objective reality" which we don't need science to verify (but it happily could) that a small but significant proportion of humans, for whatever reasons, desire to act this way.

It is only rational and sensible for our governance systems to reflect and cater for these people. To act otherwise is oppressive, uncaring and unkind - as these systems are supposed to cater for all of us.

Right now, we're simply working through how we change our systems of governance so we can do that.