Men are not women.

[Perfumer]

**** you, whoever kicked me. I will NEVER play along with "well this is Katie, who has a cock, but Katie is a woman!"

You can play this bullshit of "we don't discriminate against genders" all you like. It doesn't change reality. And **** your little "mod" clique too.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[elwoodbluz1966]

**** you, whoever kicked me. I will NEVER play along with "well this is Katie, who has a cock, but Katie is a woman!"

You can play this bullshit of "we don't discriminate against genders" all you like. It doesn't change reality. And **** your little "mod" clique too.

We do not tolerate any form of gender discrimination on this chat site. Be it homophobia, transphobia or any other form of hate speech about how chatters choose to live their life. If you dislike it, fine, that is your opinion, but don't try to intimidate those that choose how to dress. And don't be abusive to our moderators when they rightly act on your unacceptable behaviour in chat. This chat site has rules and TOU and I suggest you go and read them. Oh and btw, it's 2024, not 1951.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

I really like the decimal system. Does that make me non-binary?

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[Perfumer]

We do not tolerate any form of gender discrimination on this chat site. Be it homophobia, transphobia or any other form of hate speech about how chatters choose to live their life. If you dislike it, fine, that is your opinion, but don't try to intimidate those that choose how to dress. And don't be abusive to our moderators when they rightly act on your unacceptable behaviour in chat. This chat site has rules and TOU and I suggest you go and read them. Oh and btw, it's 2024, not 1951.

To be honest, I shouldn't be surprised that you've written that "it's 2024" bullshit. After all, you're the very one who stuck a Ukraine flag in your username, like an absolute melt. Wait til people start pressuring to legalise incest (they exist already), and you won't have a leg to stand on because you're already hitched yourself to the bullshit wagon. Men are men, women are women. Women do not have cocks. Men do not have vaginas. It's that simple. A crossdresser is a crossdresser. If you want to play silly make-believe and pretend that black is white and white is black, I won't join in. And finally, I didn't engage in any harassment at all. I'll call people what they are - MEN AND WOMEN.

 

[Kev45]

Wait til people start pressuring to legalise incest (they exist already), and you won't have a leg to stand on because you're already hitched yourself to the bullshit wagon.

But incest is already legal in countries such as Russia or Spain, and technically not illegal in a sizeable number of other countries globally.

But what on earth is the correlation between crossdressing and incest, anyway?

Men are men, women are women. Women do not have cocks. Men do not have vaginas. It's that simple.

It's not that simple though, is it, because genetically (chromosomes) women can be men and vice versa and scientific studies have shown it is more common than previously understood.

Science might not fully understand now why people self identify as the opposite gender, even with or without X and Y, but it doesn't mean there won't be an explanation in the future.

Homosexuality went through exactly the same process, didn't it...

Moral panics whipped up by a hysterical right-wing MSM are just that.

Just saying like.

 

[Perfumer]

But incest is already legal in countries such as Russia or Spain, and technically not illegal in a sizeable number of other countries globally.

But what on earth is the correlation between crossdressing and incest, anyway?



It's not that simple though, is it, because genetically (chromosomes) women can be men and vice versa and scientific studies have shown it is more common than previously understood.

Science might not fully understand now why people self identify as the opposite gender, even with or without X and Y, but it doesn't mean there won't be an explanation in the future.

Homosexuality went through exactly the same process, didn't it...

Moral panics whipped up by a hysterical right-wing MSM are just that.

Just saying like.

People who hitch their wagon to the utter bullshit of "it's 2024, not 1951" have no leg to stand on when something like incest comes along. They just assume that societal improvements automatically accompany the passage of time; that is the height of stupidity.

As for the rest of what you wrote, it is sheer falsehood. Read Dr Debra Soh's book The End of Gender - if you have the humility to do so.

 

[Kev45]

People who hitch their wagon to the utter bullshit of "it's 2024, not 1951" have no leg to stand on when something like incest comes along.

You have avoided the question, why is that?

I didn't give an opinion about incest, and I was merely pointing out that actually incest in fact legal in a number of countries, and only in response to what you typed.

The question was what is the correlation between crossdressing and incest. I mean, why on earth are you moralizing and giving a sermon about incest?

It's just such a random thing to type.

As for the rest of what you wrote, it is sheer falsehood. Read Dr Debra Soh's book The End of Gender - if you have the humility to do so.

I suspect you also don't understand what humility is, I simply pointed out that your own statement isn't as "black and white" as you stated it is and science explains why, and again it isn't my personal opinion.

If you believe that either a penis or a vagina define gender, then you are simply wrong.

They just assume that societal improvements automatically accompany the passage of time; that is the height of stupidity.

Quite clearly, societal improvements do follow the passage of time. Whether you or I agree what is an improvement or not is an altogether different discussion.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[Moriarty]

I think this is a key point you've made, sex and gender are often used interchangeably, but they actually have different meanings & this I believe is where a lot of conflict stems from.
sex refers to the biological characteristics that define male and female bodies this includes factors such as chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs whereas gender is a more complex concept that refers to the roles, behaviors, activities, and expectations that society considers appropriate for men and women. gender is often seen as a social or cultural construct, rather than a purely biological one.

sex is assigned at birth by a midwife or Dr based on physical characteristics, while gender identity is how individuals personally identify themselves in terms of masculinity & femininity and their gender identity may not always align with their assigned sex at birth.

Your conflating many different ideas into a simple binary.
Sex, physically exists on an, if you like, spectrum.

At one end you have male, at the other you have female, in between you have many anatomically different intersex variations.

To say there are only 2 sexes is wrong, there are 2 different langauge variations of commonly acceptable sex, but in reality there are many different types of sex classifications.

These are physical differences one cannot debate are psychological, political, etc etc.

Where gender comes in is a highly debatable point, can we not agree it is the psychological component of ones sex, irrespective of biology, as seen by the individual.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows either an effeminate male or a masculine female.
How does that happen.
Is it societal, genetic or familiar.

Is it choice, history or pressure?

We don't know.
There are many theories, most concerning nature vrs nurture.
Yet we are dismissing social pressure and desires.
For example, historically homosexuality between men has been acceptable, when there is a socially dominant partner and a poorer or even slave submissive.
Or when "love" between men could be viewed as useful, for example within military units where brotherhood was the accepted way of knowing you are best protected in battle by those who love you.

Thats the ancient world, today we are more tolerant, but 50 years ago.. Not so much.
I don't agree with homosexuality, or mixed "Gender" units within the armed forces, but that is because people take to many risks when they are in love.
Better that soldiers are single.

That was the norm for many civilisations in history, what we call homosexuality was actually just a different way of having sex.
Patriarchal, yes, class based, usually, yet in most cases (not all) mutual.

We are living in an age of apparent certainty.
We think we know best.

I am afraid that in 20-50 years the world will look back and wonder why we allowed this to happen.
Because if the left keeps pushing against the centre it will go further right.
Which I would like, have to agree.
Less government, less idiocy, less career politics, but we need balance between both.
I worry the pendulum will swing to far right and there will be a whole host of new problems added to the ones the hard swing left has caused.

My greatest worry is that we have medicalised a generation who, confused with their place in life have turned to transformation rather than acceptance.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[Karl69]

We do not tolerate any form of gender discrimination on this chat site. Be it homophobia, transphobia or any other form of hate speech about how chatters choose to live their life. If you dislike it, fine, that is your opinion, but don't try to intimidate those that choose how to dress. And don't be abusive to our moderators when they rightly act on your unacceptable behaviour in chat. This chat site has rules and TOU and I suggest you go and read them. Oh and btw, it's 2024, not 1951.

Well said Kate

 

[ArthurSleep]

Fuzzy wuzzy wazza woman

 

[Raining_Roses]

The brainwashing on this thread is as vibrant as a made-up flag!

Apparently, in 2023, lots of children and young teens, middle-aged men and women in their early 20’s have a chromosomal difference that doesn’t generally start to take effect until they get exposed to porn and sex stereotypes. This chromosomal difference, so small yet so significant, that those without the chromosomal difference (that there is no actual test for being used in the populus to actually determine whether everyone- apparently- ‘born in the wrong body’ has this difference!) need to change their language, laws and general behaviour to suit.

I wonder if this chromosomal difference is the responsible for over 75% of incarcerated trans(wo-men) being offenders of a sexual and/or violent crime? Funny how in some, this chromosomal difference only activates after they have to serve time for a violent/sexually motivated crime!

Out of the 23 pairs of chromosomes we hold, it seems this little difference which, despite the copious amounts of research that has been going on for eons on the human genome, has only just been discovered since puberty blockers et al have been available to all! WoW, what a surprise! Very coincidental, don’t you think?

Sex is not ‘assigned’ at birth- it’s observed. Nature assigns your sex well before birth- upon fertilisation, in fact. There are no medical professionals, sitting around their cuppas making decisions on what to ‘assign’ the next one that pops out. To ‘assign’ is to make an allocation- no human can ‘allocate’ the sex of a baby (outside of a lab!).

While genitals don’t ‘define’ gender, they’re a big bloody part of it. If they weren’t, why would any trans want gender reassignment surgery and submit themselves to a life of medical dependency? Why imitate the genitals of your mental sex with prosthetics?

And now, let’s look at ‘gender’ or more specifically, gender theory, with its roots in socially constructed stereotypes of binary sex categories- men and women. This theory is very pink and blue, rather than black and white- girls do this, they dress like this, they act like this, they like boys! OMG, YOU’RE A GIRL! But hey- whatever trans the gay away! Something I thought we would have moved on from in 2024, but alas, in a patriarchal, pharma driven money-obsessed world, it’s thriving! Wonder what kind of dysmorphia will be profitable next? Will the next have the stroke of genius of tapping into porn-invested males like this one (who, let’s face it, have the money to spend on cosmetic surgery that middle-aged women don’t- thanks to that male privilege of better positions, higher pay & not having to have unpaid leave to care for a child for most of their lives!).

So glad the Conservatives have got some common sense with the latest news. Our children are not lab rats and hopefully, at some point in the future, they’ll be prosecutions for all parents and professionals that have been complicit in medicalizing their children, over a ‘feeling’ based on the stereotypes and loathing of their own bodies. No child is born in the wrong body.

I’ll leave Jennifer to say the rest.

 

[Raining_Roses]

Right...cos there's no connection between this agenda and incest....none whatsoever (*cough* John Money....).
There's absolutely nothing sinister going on in schools...nothing sinister at all.....
In a school near you!

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[Confused_Fred]

I've been forced to pop back on here after reading the bs.

First let me say, I'm not gay or a trans person.

The idea that very gay or trans person is child sex offender is hideous. A stereotype used by people to justify mutilation and incarceration in the past.

And the past is where this out dated attitude belongs.

Those in the media playing the "gay/trans" card to avoid jail time or gain advantage in some way are just criminals. Criminals will say anything to avoid facing the consequences of their actions.

While I understand peoples concerns on trans rights being taught in schools, UK's history of "Drag Queens" in society goes back to before Shakespeare. Shakespeare's plays include non-binary characters like Puck from a midsummers nights dream.

Do we ban Shakespeare from our schools? After all, for the past 500 years Shakespeare's plays have been teaching our children "gay/trans" attitudes.

Don't cancel our past, don't re write our history, celebrate it !!

​

 

[Kev45]

The evidence, in the UK, demonstrates that the vast majority of child sex offences involve heterosexual men. There is also no evidence at all that men from within the LGBTQ community are more likely to sexually abuse children compared to heterosexual men.

Posting wanky YouTube videos, doesn't alter that fact.

The ludicrous notion that exposure to gay literature leads to "homosexuality" is a damaging homophobic trope that is simply ludicrous anyway because, homosexuals reading "straight" literature don't suddenly become "straight" do they.

We know that they don't become "straight" because we know that numerous immoral 'experiments' throughout history to make them "straight" failed, and still fail.

The modern term "grooming" in relation to paedophilia in particular originated in the USA, was subsequently weaponized by the "religious" far-right, and eventually it became "normalized" within the mainstream religious conservative movement in the USA.

The problem now is, an extremely complex issue, with a long and chequered history, has been dumbed down by conspiracy theorists to tick their belief box. Ooo look, I found a wanky YouTube video that supports my views, pre-existing views fuelled further by watching more wanky YouTube videos.

The political dumbing down of complex issues, clicks equal monetary prizes and or political power, and confirmation bias gets its addictive fix.

That's without even getting a religion driven homophobia that is on the rise across the globe, when being "gay" really can cost you your liberty, or even your life.

 

[Moriarty]

It's actually very simple to see but one hell of a problem to fix.

We life in a hyper individualised society, where what we do and see are classified as our reality.

To express simple "facts" like there are 2 sexes linguistically but not physically is a simple bais caused by a lack of empathy and/or linguistic knowledge.

Lets travel back in time a little to the formation of "reality" being subjective rather than objective.

Takes us back over a hundred years when historians decided that primary source documentation and empirical evidence are the only things which can define objective reality.

If you are only willing to accept primary source documentation of history one can only answer what happened.. Not why.
One can qoute stats and make arguments over "Why" something happened, but that is not empirical.
That is subjective.

That is the problem with both modern history academia and science.
People are to busy looking for the "Why".
Social media has simply ramped that pontless debating up to 11.
People lack faith in what the human species is.

We are curious apes.
Nothing more, nothing less.
We wish to further our goals, for some that is society at large, for others it is on a per person basis.

In most places where a rule of law is universal to all power strata that works well enough to keep most corruption managable.
To Dictatorships, be that by charactor, ideology or religion, they are not open to opinions other than the "Narrative" they support, be that left, right, religous or "OMG Aliens"

I always remember my father saying "Life is pretty simple, you sleep, pee, take a dump every once in a while and work to support your family and have fun every now and them"

When people want more than that they become entrepreneurs or politicians.
I have no problem with entrepreneurs, they have a product that sells if they are successful.
As for politicians, there should be a 4 year limit on any and all political positions and they are not allowed a book deal or a position withing any company for 5 years after service.
I think all politicians should be paid more to remain above the reach of activists and lobbyists.

As for "Grooming"
Yes the term originated within the USA, it was a way of catagorising the methods predators used to gain the trust of victims.
Mainly through the use of selecting young girls with low income backgrounds.
Using alchohol, drugs and peer pressure techniques.
Many times fake relationships were involved to bring the girl into the circle then the drugs/drink cycle would start by getting the girl drunk or high enough to do something her family would be ashamed of, thats when the blackmail started.
That blackmail then brought in other girls.
Is an ever expanding business.
It's much cheaper than importing girls from abroad through the immigrant slave trade that people with an open borders mentality seem to miss.

In the UK, there have been many grooming gangs, of various ethnicities.
I will not and cannot say if there are selectively more homogenous grooming gangs from the UK, be they white, brown, black, yellow or green, however, there is the way the cases were handled.

A UK based all white and an eastern European grooming gang can and has faced the full force of the law.
However, a grooming gang which is not "White" tend to not be investigated because the police fear local racial tension.
Which I can understand, one does not want riots.
However, there is supposed to be equality under the law.

That is the problem.
If one uses a rhetoric that foreigners are grooming young British white girls, it gets newspaper headlines.
And while horrific, there should be other concerns.
One doesn't hear of the Sex Slave trade from Asia, Africa, the Middle East.
Which are far greater in number.

No one seems to care about those.