Is this what society has come to?

Discussion in 'The Front Room' started by BloodOmen, Aug 28, 2018.

  1. Gwadien

    Gwadien Uneducated Northern Cretin

  2. DaGaffer

    DaGaffer Down With That Sorta Thing

    Whataboutery of the worst kind.
  3. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    Was this person placed in the best place? The last thing you linked to it was the prison service that was at fault for not following guidelines.

    Either way - does any of this mean we should not treat non-criminal transgender people poorly?

    I mean - gays in the military eh? What if they look at men's cocks in their shared changing rooms? I've not noticed a gay specific place in our local swimming baths where gay men have to go, to stop them looking at our cocks.

    Oh wait. We don't give a shit. But I absolutely remember that argument being used 30 years ago...
  4. Gwadien

    Gwadien Uneducated Northern Cretin

    Not at all.

    If you're in a place which is meant to be safe for your gender, I'd imagine that they wouldn't allow anyone in with a criminal record relating to crimes which puts others in danger.
  5. Job

    Job The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse

    Of course your example is men not worrying about other men.
    Its a completely different scenario for a woman faced with a man in a dress, considering the very high levels of mental health issues in trans is a concern.

    As usual..doesnt affect me meh.
  6. DaGaffer

    DaGaffer Down With That Sorta Thing

    How many female sex offenders against other females are there, statistically? Fuck all. How many male v. female? Rather more wouldn't you say? Fox in the henhouse springs to mind.

    Edit. I can tell you how many. In 2016 there were 140 convicted female sex offenders, of which 22 where women against women. Overall there were 11,600 sex offence convictions. So women overall, 1.2%, against other women, 0.19%.
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
  7. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    I think this is more an argument that you shouldn't be putting sex offenders in accomodation with vulnerable people who've been victims to that person's offences, wouldn't you say?

    Like the sex offender who they put in a woman's prison, against prison guidelines. It's fucking retarded.

    And still, how we treat criminals doesn't mean we should be treating all transgender people as potential criminals, or all men as potential rapists, or all gays as potential perverts...
  8. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

    Maybe putting large, deep-voiced people with cock and balls in a women’s refuge just isn’t a good idea.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. DaGaffer

    DaGaffer Down With That Sorta Thing

    No, its an argument you shouldn't put men, no matter how they self-identify, in a women's refuge, because maybe you should think about how the actual women in such places might feel about that.
  10. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    Post op?

    What if the women are OK about it? You seem to assume that everyone would be hostile to the idea.

    And nobody seems to want to talk about normal transgender people in normal society, rather than womens refuges and prisons - both of which have sets of rules that will (or have been) adapted.
  11. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

    Nobody is saying that transgender people are bad per se. Just the idea that because some man decides he wants to call himself a woman he should automatically get the right of access to women’s hard earned spaces automatically, no questions asked.

    It’s not a straw man. That’s pretty much a mainstream request amongst the woke now.
  12. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    No. The argument here is about women's refuges, and prisons. That's what you're talking about. Both of which clearly have sets of rules that may or may not have been followed (in the case of the prison, clearly not). Certainly the situations you've brought up haven't been "no questions asked".

    You seem to have lost (or ditched) your nuance when talking about this. I've agreed with you on sports events, I've mostly agreed with you on women's prisons and refuges - with the caveat that rules should be followed regarding offenders - but I've no problem with vulnerable, non-criminal self-identifying transgender women being placed in a refuge if the rules are being followed.

    I've no problem with non-criminal transgender women being put on female wards in hospitals, for example, - although I disagree with the premise of single-sex hospital wards.

    You seem to want to say self-identification should be outlawed because "it's fucking stupid" and "look at what's happened in these extreme cases".

    The transgender "issue" isn't a big issue as far as I'm concerned. We'll all die out because we're the new, old fuddy-duddies and the kids'll be fine with it.

  13. DaGaffer

    DaGaffer Down With That Sorta Thing

    What? You going to run a vote in every women's refuge? I fucking guarantee that most women in those places will be hostile to the idea. Trust is a valued commodity in such places.
  14. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber


    And either way. We're talking about outlier cases, again. And trying to use them to justify stuff that won't really matter in the long run.

    Frankly, I don't really care much about transgender issues. Other than we're having the debate, and it's quite possible we could do better. And that a new balance might be struck. And I think that's a "good thing".
  15. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

    Women. Know your place.
  16. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    1) I didn't say that. and 2) Are you talking for women now @Wij?

    Mansplain it to me? Because having a reasonable position (silly for sports, use the rules to protect people in prison, cut law-abiding citizens some slack) seems to be not good enough.

    I mean those three points:
    1) Silly for sports.
    2) Use the goddamn rules to protect people from sex offenders ffs
    3) Cut law-abiding people some slack.

    What's wrong with that?

    Go on. I'm trying to answer your questions.
  17. DaGaffer

    DaGaffer Down With That Sorta Thing

    All crimes are "outlier cases", but that's not my real concern; how is it we think its OK to prioritise the mental requirements of a trans-gender person over the mental requirements of women in a women's refuge?
  18. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

    Maybe women don't want male-bodied people in women's refuges or women's sports or taking their place in women-only anything. Maybe lesbians don't like being told they are bigots if they don't like cock.
  19. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    It's yet to be shown that the mental requirements of women in a woman's refuge are going to be best served by excluding transgender people. Perhaps they'd be a lot more tolerant than you?
    Are you even reading my posts?

    1) On the refuges point - like I mentioned to @DaGaffer - none of us have evidence (other than our own suppositions). *Maybe* a lot of them won't give a fuck. You and Gaff don't know either way - so my opinion on that is just as good as yours.

    2) Sports. Again. When I've pointed out I agree with you. Repeatedly. FFS. From even before Navratilova.

    3) I'm sure lots of people don't like being told they're bigots if they don't like cock. Again. I fucking agree with you. FFS. :eek:. But I also have (repeatedly) made the point that it's a tiny but vocal minority that are saying that shit. As have you. But why the fuck do you still think I agree with them?

    Two out of three points I agree with you on. One we differ - and there's no evidence either way other than anecdotal (and we could probably supply either way).

    So what's the bloody problem here?
  20. DaGaffer

    DaGaffer Down With That Sorta Thing

    Occam's Razor. Women go to a refuge to avoid abusive men, so you put men in a women't refuge.

    1. Since you don't really have the opportunity to do a survey in advance your only way to test is by doing, which is inherently risky.
    2. Statistically I can guarantee a higher number of women in women's refuge are going to be uncomfortable with a man in the place than the number of Transsexuals that are going to be in there. That's a very simple numbers game and you absolutely don't need "proof" to bet on that outcome; of course you don't.

    This is just common sense thrown on the dumpster fire of political correctness. And while its an edge case to you and me, its absolutely not to the women affected by it, and there are more of them than there are transsexuals who want to occupy women's spaces, be it refuges, sports, or anything else.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    So we come back to my first question @DaGaffer - post-op transsexuals? Do you think women in a woman's refuge would have a massive problem with a vulnerable post-op transsexual?

    Like I've ssid - I don't hold very firm views on a lot of this - other than the three points I made
    It seems that people are really reluctant to cut self-identifying transsexuals a bit of slack in day-to-day society when the downsides are so slight.

    Yes, prisons, refuges, safe spaces for vulnerable people, it's reasonable to have discussions about that sort of thing.

    But at the moment we seem to be in a place where we're using those discussions to justify treatment of trans people in common-or-garden life situations poorly.
  22. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

    We weren't talking about post-op anyone. The majority of born-male-adults who identify as transgender have had no surgery or even hormones.

    20 years ago they'd have identified as transvestites.

    Don't muddy it by bringing post-ops into it.

    /edit: except sport. even post-op it's still unfair for anyone who went through puberty as male to compete against women. I assume you still agree there.
  23. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

  24. Job

    Job The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse

    Its good to see liberalism at work when its allowed to go bat shit crazy.

    When we finally return to normality and things start to creep, they'll just be able to bring up the 2010s and everyone will go..oh fuck yeah.
  25. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

    How is that even liberalism?

    Boys' feelings > girls' feelings sounds very traditional/conservative to me.
  26. Job

    Job The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse

    Well yes..that advice is actually the start of full circle.
  27. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    1) I don't want to get changed next to a gay man. What if he looks at my willy?
    Answer: Boys, move over.

    As happened to you and me in the 80s. But do you give a shit about gay men in changing rooms if you're not Job?

    2) Yeah. I disagree.

    Binary labels feels very traditional / conservative to me.

    And we don't have to look far around the globe to cultures where this isn't an issue because they don't have rigid binary definitions.

    We're old Wij. This won't be a problem soon.
  28. Wij

    Wij I am a FH squatter FH Subscriber

    It will be a problem.

    Not the same thing.
  29. DaGaffer

    DaGaffer Down With That Sorta Thing

    I don't think "why bother going in for competitive sports if you've never owned a cock" is just going to go away. Some things are "binary" because they exist in reality rather than planet Whatevra Iwannabe
  30. Scouse

    Scouse HERO! FH Subscriber

    As I've said. Totally agree.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.