This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
I'm Andy Fly Me
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 11.58am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
1. So if it is only a hypothesis at this stage why are you encouraging radical changes to society, which endangers women, to accommodate a hypothetical notion from a tiny minority? A hypothesis, no matter how eloquent, that cannot be practically proven is useless. It is only what the causes might be that are a hypothesis, not that those involved are genuine. Accepting one group of women into the broader group, is no different to accepting those with different colour skins into it. It might feel radical to some, but not to those with fairness and equality in their soul. Over time, it becomes the norm. 2. Treating people with a condition is not the same as bowing to their every whim, in fact it is entirely different and often counter-productive and dangerous. It's not a condition that needs treatment, any more than having a different skin colour is. It just requires understanding and acceptance. 3. Basing your entire view and stance off of your interaction with one or two of your kin to support and aggressively campaign societal change is ludicrous. I don't. My position changed because my grandchildren's experiences encouraged me to research and understand things better. They raised questions. I found the answers. 4. Deflecting the endangering of woman with a ridiculous reasoning of 'we should concentrate on perpetrators' is morally bankrupt. Again, it's the equivalent of arming the paranoid, letting your 'lovely' fox into the rabbit hutch, bull in a china shop, cat amongst pigeons, whatever, just to stroke your own ego and say 'look how progressive, compassionate and worthy of martyr status to this cause I am'. Your individual subjective experience and selfish motivations do not justify your commentary on this. The fact you cannot see a wider picture beyond your own motivation and disregard all potential ramifications, which could be severe to many, to suit your own agenda in supporting a hypothetical notion, is appalling. It has nothing at all to do with me. I don't have an agenda beyond the belief that some people need to be understood better. Introducing other, unrelated, problems is what is appalling. The fundamental problem here is that many of the comments come from people who cannot accept that transgenderism is real. They feel if you have male, or female genitalia, then you must be that sex. I have come to understand that's untrue.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 12.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
But no one is prepared to deal with the problem, that is the point. Anyone who speaks out about the issue are branded transphobic, Councils and businesses are allowing any one who identifies as female to invade womens private spaces. At the present time the people being targeted are biological women, who are not being allowed their own private space and have the audacity to speak out against it That's as wrong as not accepting the transgendered as genuine. Common sense needs to prevail and not for more problems to be created by "solutions" than they solve.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  07 Oct 22 12.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
What evidence do you have for that claim? I don't think it's in any way true. A few activists may be going over the top, but they aren't representative, and their activities mustn't be allowed to obscure the real issues. I believe most transgenders have no wish at all to upset other women, are very aware of the potential for misunderstanding, and are very careful and considerate. It just needs some common sense. The evidence is that they think going places reserved for with men and girls is their absolute right with no consideration of how those women might feel about the situation and then claiming anyone who objects needs to be "educated".
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 07 Oct 22 12.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The fundamental problem here is that many of the comments come from people who cannot accept that transgenderism is real. They feel if you have male, or female genitalia, then you must be that sex. I have come to understand that's untrue. You have come to accept that their feelings are more valid than other people's. That's not the same as being true.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 07 Oct 22 12.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Nor, in my opinion, should the use of changing facilities. If people want privacy, for whatever reason, they ought to be able to get it. It seems one situation, which is a real problem, is being used to justify dealing unreasonably with another which isn't. I don't expect most transgenders want to appear naked in front of others, but may want to swim. Why disadvantage them? The right to go swimming isn't a major touchstone of a free society. It's a leisure activity - if they're that desperate to partake there are swimming pools without shared facilities. Or the sea.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 07 Oct 22 12.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The fundamental problem here is that many of the comments come from people who cannot accept that transgenderism is real. They feel if you have male, or female genitalia, then you must be that sex. I have come to understand that's untrue. Ah lovely you are trying to conflate this with racism now. What an overtly pathetic and offensive attempt, to numerous parties, to try and demonise those who call you out. Secondly, you have compared to a biological fact there. Furthermore, you have reinforced your stance that this is indeed fact, just stating it as so, when it couldn't be further from fact. No matter how much you wish something buttercup it doesn't just make it so and therefore you cannot claim fact where it does not exist. That really is hilarious that you think opinions and feelings constitute truth. Thirdly, and this is getting funnier, no you have not found any answers. What you have done is sort to elicit and locate that which serves to validate your subjective opinion only, opinion not scientific hypothesis. Once again, whatever that may be motivated by. Lastly, and equally hilariously, nobody is 'introducing other unrelated, problems'. We are still operating off the point which provided the juncture at which I joined. A point you were supporting. This is hilarious. And even so yes, everything beyond 'some people just need understanding', itself a pathetic statement within the context you are employing it, does need attention especially when the ramifications are so dangerous. Yet another weasel attempt to derail and distract from the discussion, in which you hold no authority and are exposing yourself to ridicule, never mind your continuous attempt at shooting down those calling you out down using the same old, tired, excessively ignorant rhetoric which bears no relevance nor holds any water whatsoever. Still laughing at your attempt to place a proverbial 'race card'. For reiteration, race is a fact and discrimination of a person on this basis alone is appalling. Challenging somebody stating the anatomically, biologically and scientifically anti-truth is very far from appalling, it is actually appropriate if not necessary to at the very least call out. It is more so when that person seeks to endanger half of humanity in their attempts to justify their own anti-scientific delusions. I really do despair that people like you exist in the world sometimes but is does provide adequate fuel for some fun.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 07 Oct 22 2.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That's something we can all agree with, and I will put to my transgender grandchild the next time I speak to them. I have every expectation they will wholeheartedly agree. As an aside, I don't think that the Mermaid director has been "outed" as pro-paedophile at all. That's just Daily Mail distortion. He once spoke at an event when something he said, taken out of context, has the capacity of being presented in that way. Much more evidence is required before such a slur can be confirmed. The Mail is a scurrilous rag, winding people up and reinforcing prejudice. They are about to get their knuckles severely rapped, if the actions announced yesterday are successful. Calling paedophiles “minor attracted persons” is taken out of context? How exactly? Speaking at a conference held by an organisation that want paedophiles to be able to live “with dignity”. Doesn’t prove he is a paedophile but sure as damn it shows he appears not to have an issue with them. Not just the Mail reporting it, was initially in the Times Edited by Spiderman (07 Oct 2022 2.17pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 5.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
The evidence is that they think going places reserved for with men and girls is their absolute right with no consideration of how those women might feel about the situation and then claiming anyone who objects needs to be "educated". You cannot prove a negative! I can however advise that all the conversations I have had with my transgender grandchild, whose integrity I trust completely, indicates that this kind of idea is untrue. They are only too aware of how other women feel and react, want to reassure, help and yes, educate, them. That there may be a few vocal activists doesn’t mean that the majority are like that. Common sense solutions need to be found that everyone can live with. Which is far from impossible.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 07 Oct 22 5.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
Calling paedophiles “minor attracted persons” is taken out of context? How exactly? Speaking at a conference held by an organisation that want paedophiles to be able to live “with dignity”. Doesn’t prove he is a paedophile but sure as damn it shows he appears not to have an issue with them. Not just the Mail reporting it, was initially in the Times Edited by Spiderman (07 Oct 2022 2.17pm) For those on here saying he has been misinterpreted, please read from his book last year Edited by Spiderman (07 Oct 2022 5.21pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | Spiderman Horsham 07 Oct 22 5.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Oh and part of his misinterpreted speech
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 5.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
Calling paedophiles “minor attracted persons” is taken out of context? How exactly? Speaking at a conference held by an organisation that want paedophiles to be able to live “with dignity”. Doesn’t prove he is a paedophile but sure as damn it shows he appears not to have an issue with them. Not just the Mail reporting it, wasinitially in the Times Edited by Spiderman (07 Oct 2022 2.17pm)[/ The allegation was that he was “pro-paedophile”, which suggests he regards them positively. Engaging with any controversial group doesn’t indicate anything of the sort. His motivation may well have been to challenge some of their ideas. I have no more idea than anyone else, but that doesn’t stop the media writing their stories. Using terms in a presentation that gets your audience on your side helps make them listen to your arguments. Thus “minor attracted persons” needs to be seen in its context.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 07 Oct 22 5.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
You cannot prove a negative! I can however advise that all the conversations I have had with my transgender grandchild, whose integrity I trust completely, indicates that this kind of idea is untrue. They are only too aware of how other women feel and react, want to reassure, help and yes, educate, them. That there may be a few vocal activists doesn’t mean that the majority are like that. Common sense solutions need to be found that everyone can live with. Which is far from impossible. Yet again, the requirement for education. I've never paid much attention to the concept of mansplaining but here it is.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.