Men are not women.

[Raining_Roses]

I totally disagree with this, babies in the womb are all female until around the 8th week of pregnancy when the Y chromosome carried by the father's sperm triggers the development of male reproductive organs.

Disagree all you like! It makes no difference to the fact that the biological schema for whether the foetus will male or female is introduced at conception (in the father’s sperm) and not ‘assigned’ by an irrelevant observer, 9 months later. As you’ve just said, the change in chromosome happens in around the 8th week, but the allocation has already happened at the moment the egg was fertilised. It’s a process determined by the material in the sperm and doesn’t just happen suddenly at around 8-9weeks of development.

aaaaaand this is where my interactions with you stop dead it will be impossible to converse, your brain is illogical, you really believe this.

Hang on a minute! You said in a previous post that a human ‘assigns’ the biological sex of another human and you’re calling me illogical! Lmao And then go on another thread to explain to me (a crazy cat lady for over 24 years) why my cats lick and bite me! I’m sure there’s a toothless granny around somewhere, who you could teach to suck eggs! This is UK Chat after all!

It would be nice for you to explain how my point is illogical. It’s not a conspiracy theory that up to around 30 years ago (or less!), women on average got paid less than their male counterparts. They also don’t miss out on pension and NHS contributions when they stop working to have a family. The current generation of men in their late 50’s and older benefitted from those higher wage brackets and better opportunities. They’re a nice little target group when it comes to marketing fetishes, as they have the money to indulge. So please, elaborate- how is what I said illogical?

 

[Chip_TheViking]

.

 

[WickedPerdition]

The current generation of men in their late 50’s and older benefitted from those higher wage brackets and better opportunities. They’re a nice little target group when it comes to marketing fetishes, as they have the money to indulge. So please, elaborate- how is what I said illogical?

Boo-hoo!

My heart bleeds for you 'ill-done-by women' of certain years.

It was only a matter of time before 'equality' in pension age was going to be dealt with, in a fair and proper manner.
Moreso, in view of the differentiation between the longevity of women and that of men. Thankfully, this is gradually reducing with each passing decade.
It means that widows will now be unable to enjoy as much time, as they previously did, on holidays and planning how to use up their free time at the expense of their poor, long-departed husbands, whose benevolence ensured they were able to.

 

[WickedPerdition]

Oh, and by the way everybody, it's been an interesting lesson in reproductive biology, and to a lesser degree, genetics.

 

[Raining_Roses]

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

​

Oh dear! First line in and the hyperbolics start already! No one forced you- you felt compelled. There’s a difference.

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

And the need for that was what? Why did you feel compelled to point out that you are not from the demographic you then go on to defend? Interesting! From a psychological view, it appears you are attempting to highlight yourself as separate from those groups and I would wonder why, if you then go on to defend them. No one else on the thread felt the need to announce their sexuality or gender identification before putting their view across.

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.

Please read what I wrote properly and STOP putting your own spin on what I’ve said. I have NOT ONCE said ANYTHING to accuse gay people of ANYTHING! Not only would I be betraying my own ethics, I’d be betraying myself and every fibre of who I am! My posts were about the TRANS IDEOLOGY and NOT sexuality- the two are different- and this is part of the problem. The populous can’t seem to separate that- especially those purporting to support their cause. So, here’s a crash course:
L (Lesbian- a sexuality)
G (Gay- a sexuality)
B (Bisexual- a sexuality)
T (Trans- an identity)
Q (Queer- another supposed identity)
Is that clear enough for you?

And if there’s no truth in it, please explain the unusually high statistic of trans offenders if they are only a small fraction of society? Male pattern violence perhaps? A side effect from taking hormones that their bodies are not designed for? A correlation between sexual deviance and offending?
The correlations are there, but the flag wavers are completely in denial.

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.

Yes, you’re right- criminals usually do say or do anything possible to avoid facing the consequences of their actions. But why would sticking on a wig and saying ‘I’m a woman’ relieve you of consequences if you have committed a crime? Access to women’s spaces, perhaps, to carry out further crimes?

But, by that reasoning, no one really knows who’s trans and who’s just a criminal in a wig and skirt. In that case, we need to retain women’s spaces based on BIOLOGICAL sex to prevent that.

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.

Just to clarify- Shakespeare was fiction and you can get away with anything in fiction, including frogs turning into princes, but alas, I don’t see scores of young girls (and boys) running around lakes, looking for frogs to kiss. Fiction is not real and neither was Shakespeare's literature.

I was taught Shakespeare at school and none of the characters were trans, because I grew up in an era where men’s fetishes were not celebrated as part of the curriculum. We also had history, where we learned that in that era, women were not allowed to act or take part in a lot of social activities- hence, why men played women in the theatre. Those men were not demanding everyone call them ‘Muriel’ after coming off stage and claiming ‘BIGOT!’ if someone called them a man. They were not ‘trans’- they were men playing women or androgynous characters.
There have always been effeminate men and masculine women, but they were not the opposite sex. Throughout history, there have always been people that deviated from the societal expectations of ‘man’ and ‘woman’, and there has always been androgyny- no one’s denying that!

‘Drag’ is not trans. Drag is a form of ADULT entertainment- a characterisation of women. And if you really want to get into that one, shall we talk about black and white minstrels? I see it’s not okay to parody race these days, but perfectly okay to parody women.

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

Here we go with the hyperbolics again! I’m not the one twisting biology and history in this thread! And ‘our’? But you said you weren’t trans!

 

[Raining_Roses]

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.

I didn’t say they were. Perhaps you should read what I wrote again, which was that over 75% of trans males that were in prison were convicted of a sexual and/or violent crime. I didn’t lay ANY blame or insinuation against the LGB community at all.

And considering the majority of men in the UK are heterosexual, it’s obvious that they will be responsible for the majority of sexual offences against children, but if you do the statistics by population of perpetrators, the trans community (for their 0.16% of the UK population) have an unusually high number when compared against the general population. So, if that population overall gets bigger, what do you think will happen to that 75%?

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

My information above is not from Youtube videos- it’s from government websites. Nevertheless, if you’d have watched the videos, you might have learnt something. The 2nd one was actually a good lesson on how this ideology has roots in Marxism and the eradication of identity, but I guess it would have been old news to you!

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.

Why are you confusing the term ‘trans’ with sexuality, when the two are not the same? I’m not even going to waste my time on an answer to this, because once again, you are confabulating homosexuality with transgenderism. I get it, I really do! It’s a tactic to make me look homophobic, but I understand this ideology and it’s clear that many of those waving the Pink and Blues, don’t!

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.

Right, so now even coining a term for those that prepare and coerce children into being abused is something invented by the far-right! An awful lot of your language has its roots in religion and those that are now perceived as ‘far-right’.

But actually, what are you saying here? What’s your point? That protecting children from child-abuse and coining language to identify child-abuse is a far-right concept? What does that say about the far-left? No need to answer that- the 2nd video ‘wanky’ I posted pretty much says it all, but you didn’t bother watching it!

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.

Because the information Antifa provides you- and you’re willing to believe, because you’re so entrenched- is oh, so reliable!

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.

Again, with the relation to sexuality. But I suppose the best strategy for those that want to be perceived as victims is to align with those that really were.

 

[Raining_Roses]

you're just repeating what I said, I said *babies in the womb are all female until around the 8th week of pregnancy when the Y chromosome carried by the father's sperm triggers the development of male reproductive organs.*
I never said it's chosen suddenly., please try to keep up with the conversation.

Says the bloke going around the board mansplaining!

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.

You said “sex is assigned at birth by a midwife or Dr based on physical characteristics”. As you can see, there was no mention of 8 or 9 weeks, conception or anything! That's post #10 in this thread, btw.

Disagree all you like! It makes no difference to the fact that the biological schema for whether the foetus will male or female is introduced at conception (in the father’s sperm) and not ‘assigned’ by an irrelevant observer, 9 months later. As you’ve just said, the change in chromosome happens in around the 8th week, but the allocation has already happened at the moment the egg was fertilised. It’s a process determined by the material in the sperm and doesn’t just happen suddenly at around 8-9weeks of development.

Also, I see you’ve cropped out the bit where I said ‘As you’ve just said,' implying I knew I was repeating what you said, but alas, in a previous thread, you didn't seem to be sure, so I thought I better repeat it back. You seemed to think a medical professional decided what sex the baby was on birth in post 10 (see above).

It’s not me that needs to keep up with the conversation. Perhaps you need to stop *nit-picking reasons to pick on the only gender-critical person woman here. You’re showing off your Andrew Tate badge!

*Another word invented by the far-right slave owners that unbeknown to lefties, they still use today in 2024! Shock! Horror!

 

[Raining_Roses]

Boo-hoo!

My heart bleeds for you 'ill-done-by women' of certain years.

It was only a matter of time before 'equality' in pension age was going to be dealt with, in a fair and proper manner.
Moreso, in view of the differentiation between the longevity of women and that of men. Thankfully, this is gradually reducing with each passing decade.
It means that widows will now be unable to enjoy as much time, as they previously did, on holidays and planning how to use up their free time at the expense of their poor, long-departed husbands, whose benevolence ensured they were able to.

The post was about Trans, but gawd help ya, if you didn’t find the opportunity to have a dig at someone for hurting your oh so fragile male ego!

What’s up, Puddin? Not enough spelling or grammar mistakes in my post to pick at? Perhaps you haven’t looked closely enough. That seems to be a theme on this post- selective reading, selective seeing and selective arguments instead of sticking to the original thread.

Says more about the 'For' lot than against the TWO critics on this thread (one of whom is deathly silent since the thread blew up!)

 

[Kev45]

I didn’t say they were.

You did. On another post. Multiple other posts.

But, I won't be responding further, because I refuse to feed you.

I refuse to feed someone who changes their argument, to the same topic, every debate.

The female version of the mad professor, the name you yourself, awarded him.

I know someone who knows someone who knows someone.

While you bizarrely rage about "incest" whatever that means.

Btw, the Tory regime you were congratulating the other day have just introduced Draconian legislation that opens the door to censorship of any "extreme" views, including mine, but importantly, yours too.

Congratulate that one.

Have a great day.

 

[Raining_Roses]

You did. On another post. Multiple other posts.

But, I won't be responding further, because I refuse to feed you.

Don’t break the routine, will ya, Kev! You know you can’t provide supposed proof of me being homophobic, because is there is none! But as always, you do the whole ‘I won’t feed you’, while feeding me!

I refuse to feed someone who changes their argument, to the same topic, every debate.

I don’t- I’ve been pretty consistent with my gender-critical views, right back in other incarnations and posting a Germaine Greer quote, but you’ve got to pull anything up when you feel attacked. I’m surprised you haven’t pulled out the whole ‘You’re a man!’ line, this time.

The female version of the mad professor, the name you yourself, awarded him.

I know someone who knows someone who knows someone.

Again, deflection and nothing to do with the topic or what I posted, but personally aimed comments, because you’re losing the argument and can’t answer any of the questions I posed in my earlier posts.

While you bizarrely rage about "incest" whatever that means.

Your crowd are really obsessed with the hyperbolics and twisting what others say or do to your own means! I didn’t ‘bizarrely rage about incest’- the original poster did and I just merely pointed out the connection to John Money. Perhaps you should look into the ideology that you so vehemently advocate for and see exactly what one of the pioneers of trans gender surgery was up to with his CHILD subjects.

Btw, the Tory regime you were congratulating the other day have just introduced Draconian legislation that opens the door to censorship of any "extreme" views, including mine, but importantly, yours too.

Congratulate that one.

Have a great day.

Being anchored in biological reality is hardly an extreme view. We’re not the ones harassing women online; we’re not the ones stopping women from attending events or speaking in public on issues that effect women. We’re not the one’s standing outside public buildings with violent messages aimed at women, but these lot are, so I am really pleased that the Tory’s are cracking down on extreme views. It will stop people like these. You might recognise them, including the one in the back with the ‘Decapitate Terfs’ sign. They were quite well-known & vocal in left-leaning politics.

 

[Kev45]

You posted a cartoon of a male with a green Mohican and two pierced nipples, clad in nothing but tight pink speedo's showing off his "bulge", waving two large plastic cocks at two small children.

A male shouting "boneerrr bonerrr".

A gay stereotype, overtly homophobic trope that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles and sweet f/uck all to do with "transgenderism".

After complaining about children being exposed to that same imagery at gay festivals.

You not only scoured Google for it, you then took the decision, to post it.

You are 100% homophobic.

 

[Moriarty]

Boo-hoo!

My heart bleeds for you 'ill-done-by women' of certain years.

It was only a matter of time before 'equality' in pension age was going to be dealt with, in a fair and proper manner.
Moreso, in view of the differentiation between the longevity of women and that of men. Thankfully, this is gradually reducing with each passing decade.
It means that widows will now be unable to enjoy as much time, as they previously did, on holidays and planning how to use up their free time at the expense of their poor, long-departed husbands, whose benevolence ensured they were able to.

Whats funny is that is actually happening in Spain.
The army and the police are having problems because many of the "Men" are now saying they are "Women"
The reason, women get better pensions and living quarters.
Plus the Spanish government passed a bill which makes it completly legal as one only has to identify by speach, not by action.

Read a lovely post by a Spanish squady who said "I am no longer a man, I am a lesbian"
For that he gets a better room and a better pension.

 

[Moriarty]

Don’t break the routine, will ya, Kev! You know you can’t provide supposed proof of me being homophobic, because is there is none! But as always, you do the whole ‘I won’t feed you’, while feeding me!

I don’t- I’ve been pretty consistent with my gender-critical views, right back in other incarnations and posting a Germaine Greer quote, but you’ve got to pull anything up when you feel attacked. I’m surprised you haven’t pulled out the whole ‘You’re a man!’ line, this time.


Again, deflection and nothing to do with the topic or what I posted, but personally aimed comments, because you’re losing the argument and can’t answer any of the questions I posed in my earlier posts.


Your crowd are really obsessed with the hyperbolics and twisting what others say or do to your own means! I didn’t ‘bizarrely rage about incest’- the original poster did and I just merely pointed out the connection to John Money. Perhaps you should look into the ideology that you so vehemently advocate for and see exactly what one of the pioneers of trans gender surgery was up to with his CHILD subjects.


Being anchored in biological reality is hardly an extreme view. We’re not the ones harassing women online; we’re not the ones stopping women from attending events or speaking in public on issues that effect women. We’re not the one’s standing outside public buildings with violent messages aimed at women, but these lot are, so I am really pleased that the Tory’s are cracking down on extreme views. It will stop people like these. You might recognise them, including the one in the back with the ‘Decapitate Terfs’ sign. They were quite well-known & vocal in left-leaning politics.

View attachment 14807

You do know that there is more abuse done against women by women online.
Also, look at the pic you posted, all women.
The whole Trans agenda is women driven, it makes me chuckle that they are fighting a sex/gender war to not be seen as women.

Baffles me how bad life must be that the only way some of these women can get a man is if they allow him to become a women.
Well at least Caitlen Jenner has come out and said Trans women aren't women, wonder how much hate thats gonna get for the photo child of a generation.

 

[WickedPerdition]

The post was about Trans, but gawd help ya, if you didn’t find the opportunity to have a dig at someone for hurting your oh so fragile male ego!

What’s up, Puddin? Not enough spelling or grammar mistakes in my post to pick at? Perhaps you haven’t looked closely enough. That seems to be a theme on this post- selective reading, selective seeing and selective arguments instead of sticking to the original thread.

Says more about the 'For' lot than against the TWO critics on this thread (one of whom is deathly silent since the thread blew up!)

Talk about hypocrisy! If you had initiated the thread, I might have given you more kudos.
You have the audacity to criticise someone cherry picking comments made by others and you are one of the worst exponents of it yourself!
I suggest that YOU read back what you type in your vain attempts to completely divert from the subject matter.
I am merely giving you a taste of your own medicine.
Strange that you didn't make a comment about what I posted here.
You didn't because you dare not face up to reality.
God help us if you instigate a thread of your own.
You've taken a very unhealthy interest in this particular subject.
I wonder why.
Curious.

 

[Raining_Roses]

You posted a cartoon of a male with a green Mohican and two pierced nipples, clad in nothing but tight pink speedo's showing off his "bulge", waving two large plastic cocks at two small children.

A male shouting "boneerrr bonerrr".

A gay stereotype, overtly homophobic trope that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles and sweet f/uck all to do with "transgenderism".

After complaining about children being exposed to that same imagery at gay festivals.

You not only scoured Google for it, you then took the decision, to post it.

You are 100% homophobic.

The cartoon was a parody of how sex is being shoved in children's faces at every turn and the exaggeration involved when anyone steps in. How do you know if the character that the cartoon is based on identifies as a gay male?

Btw, the picture was taken from the page of a well-known, gender-critical lesbian on Twitter, who's quite vocal about how the LGB flag has been hijacked to give you context to your 'homophobia' rant!

 

[Raining_Roses]

You do know that there is more abuse done against women by women online.

If you look at the picture I posted, there are only 2 women in it- the two at the front. The others are men- one of which (the one with the ‘decapitate’ sign) has been prosecuted for harassing and threatening women.

Women abuse women just as men abuse men, but they’re not at a level of killing 1 in 4 women a week (domestic abuse figures of women killed by male partners).

The whole Trans agenda is women driven, it makes me chuckle that they are fighting a sex/gender war to not be seen as women.

Right, because one of the ‘drivers’’ of this ideology is a ‘woman’- what like Rachel Levine kind of ‘woman’? Funny, the last time I checked, most of the big-wigs in the pharmaceutical industry were not women, nor were the ones that had any relevance in the Marxist/Socialist movement.

There will always be handmaidens, who for whatever deep-seated reason, feel the need to sacrifice the safety of their sex for the approval of men and unfortunately, we now have a breed of socialist mothers (usually middle-class and overly dependent on a masculine ‘cis’ male) trans-ing their kids. Again, for whatever deep-rooted reasons- attention, a type of Munchausen by proxy or to show the world how ‘hip and modern’ they are. And just as there will always been handmaidens, there will always been males that take advantage of that gullibility. Just as men are fallible and can't help their behaviour (I mean, isn't that usually an excuse?), so are women.

Baffles me how bad life must be that the only way some of these women can get a man is if they allow him to become a women.

Baffles me too! Perhaps you should go and ask one.

Well at least Caitlen Jenner has come out and said Trans women aren't women, wonder how much hate thats gonna get for the photo child of a generation.

Yes, he did and good on him!

 

[Kev45]

The cartoon was a parody of how sex is being shoved in children's faces at every turn and the exaggeration involved when anyone steps in.

What a load of old bollocks, a "boner" refers to an erection. It was clearly sexualized imagery, and clearly homophobic trope, but of course you would try and 'TERF' your way out of it now a few weeks later, wouldn't you.

You also, somewhat bizarrely, complained about an "extreme" image today, that you allege originated from left-wing supporters, after posting that imagery of that barely dressed man waving those two giant cocks in front of those two small children and shouting "boneerr".

Your hypocrisy is nauseating.

NAUSEATING!

When you produced yet another anecdotal tale claiming to know someone who knows someone else, and therefore it must be a reality. Of course, though, with no actual evidence at all. A Googled image, often manipulated, without a reliable source verifying that it is genuine, is not evidence.

Your confusion regarding actual 'TERF ideology and your own personal right-wing views is also really rather bizarre. You shoehorn in two completely separate/different ideologies as if they are one and the same concept, and oddly, you do not even appear to understand that the 'TERF' movement was born from within the left-wing movement.

It's a left-wing concept that culture war vultures, the right-wing, immediately leapt upon like a flea on a dogs' arse. What was once a rational and sensible debate has now been manipulated into a vitriolic witch-hunt against a tiny minority. The proof is in the pudding, your vitriolic remarks that are sweet f/uck all to do with any actual biological science.

You brand/ed an entire subset of society as "wrong uns" based on the illegal actions of a tiny minority of an already tiny minority, so small that it is totally insignificant from a scientific stance.

You also posted the Rainbow Flag a few weeks ago (what you claimed was the flag), and you also mocked and made a derogatory comment about that as well, and no doubt you will now invent another 'TERF' excuse for that one as well.



PS, I bet that you also believe that the gobshite billionaire J. K. 'I am One of You' Rowling, is a "radical feminists" too, don't you?

Because I happen to know that a sizeable number of REAL "radical feminists" believe that 'Harry Potter and the Temple of My Bank Balance' is purely sexist, colonial, anti-Semitic, racist, fattist, homophobic, rubbish.

There are the Andrew Tate's of this world, and then there are the J. K. Rowling's. One negatively influencing millions of young men and the other negatively influencing millions of young men and women (children) . The views of one is accepted and the views of another isn't, but ultimately they are two cheeks of exactly the same arse.


Just saying like.

 

[Raining_Roses]

Talk about hypocrisy! If you had initiated the thread, I might have given you more kudos.
You have the audacity to criticise someone cherry picking comments made by others and you are one of the worst exponents of it yourself!

And yet I do give critique on the subject matter. You just went in to join in with something that didn’t even relate to the original post in the first place and despite ‘liking’ views that could be classed as gender-critical, were quick to grab a bite at the one everyone else was biting in to. What’s up? Scared to go against the others, but not the woman on the thread, because ya know- big dick energy needs to be expressed.

BTW, I have started gender-critical debates in the past and they died a death, because of the stench of misogyny and the ‘poor male’ posts that come a-flocking.

I suggest that YOU read back what you type in your vain attempts to completely divert from the subject matter.

So you want me to answer the: It was only a matter of time before 'equality' in pension age was going to be dealt with, in a fair and proper manner.
Moreso, in view of the differentiation between the longevity of women and that of men. Thankfully, this is gradually reducing with each passing decade.
It means that widows will now be unable to enjoy as much time, as they previously did, on holidays and planning how to use up their free time at the expense of their poor, long-departed husbands, whose benevolence ensured they were able to.

My answer is ‘And?’ What do you expect me to say? I have no answer to it, because it’s not a question. It’s got bugger all to do with the trans debate and makes no difference to the fact that middle-aged men have more expendable cash to spend on fetishes than middle-aged women.

I am merely giving you a taste of your own medicine.

Where’s that then? It looks like it’s you that needs to adjust your meds.

Strange that you didn't make a comment about what I posted here.

I just have. See above.

You didn't because you dare not face up to reality.

You haven’t posted anything for me to ‘face up to’, What ‘reality’ was I meant to face up? That pension ages for men and women are equal- whoopee! A bit anti-climatic since I already knew it.

God help us if you instigate a thread of your own.

I have done- many times. Of late, not so much, because I have a very busy job that means I don’t spend as much time here.

You've taken a very unhealthy interest in this particular subject.
I wonder why.
Curious.

How do you measure ‘taking an unhealthy interest’ in a subject against feeling passionate about a subject? There’s an old saying, if you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything. I used to ridicule it- always standing in the middle- but seeing the gullible emerge over the 10 years, and believe me, this is a hill I will die on.

What’s curious is your need to debate ONE line in one of my posts and attempt to argue with me defending the position of binary sex and not once challenge any others.

Very curious.

 

[Kev45]

An overt misandrist is in no position to start a debate about misogyny.

That will be my final contribution to this thread.

 

[BrightonMale]

While her nomenclature may be feminine, it doesn't necessarily dictate her gender identity.
The focus on her anatomy appears to be your preoccupation, rather than a universal concern.
If you can't see past something as trivial as a name or physical characteristics, how can you expect to navigate the complexities of the online world of chat lol I'm of the opinion If one should desire to be addressed as 'she' I am amenable to the notion but that doesn't mean they're out to try to bum me dude

Complexity of the World is that Human is Human not Cat or Parrot (and operation will not make you cat)