Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Transphobes gunning hard for 'paedophilia' angle all of a sudden

In the interest of fairness, I don't see any evidence of The Gnome being bigoted or having a go at trans people.

If you're not trans you probably don't understand the chip chip chip of constant undermining of your identity and right to exist - which wasn't even that covert in this case.

Just because it doesn't involve rude words does not mean it's not demeaning. The 30 or so posts they made in the last few pages of this thread surely gives evidence that they came on here with an axe to grind?

And that a lot of that was based around "you don't have a biological basis to exist", which is transphobic.
 
There's no need to check other people's genitalia. Please don't project your perverted ideas onto me. :D

The truth of the matter is that biology is non debatable. Male is male; female is female. There's nothing in between the two -- except if you are intersex. Sex does not sit on a spectrum.

The only debatable issue here is up to what extent will you and like minded people deny bilogocial truth.
More biological absolutist bollocks. You know, the Nazis had their own idea of biological absolutism, too.

You've conveniently ignored intersex people to advance your biological absolutist nonsense and that tells me that you don't understand biology.

Did you know that earthworms are hermaphrodites and that hermaphrodites exist right across nature?
 
Last edited:
If you're not trans you probably don't understand the chip chip chip of constant undermining of your identity and right to exist - which wasn't even that covert in this case.

Just because it doesn't involve rude words does not mean it's not demeaning. The 30 or so posts they made in the last few pages of this thread surely gives evidence that they came on here with an axe to grind?

And that a lot of that was based around "you don't have a biological basis to exist", which is transphobic.

Yeah, anytime someone starts rabbiting on about biology in relation to trans people, they're giving the game away that they're a transphobic bigot. Talking about sex and gender as if they were always the same thing is another sign.
 
I assume therefore that this person never had their chromosomes checked, which is why they think its so funny. They should - it might give them a nasty surprise.

But it also proves that chromosomes are not the basis for classification of gender/sex because we just don't know unless that person has been tested and they then tell you.

Why is he doing this on a thread about trans people? Clearly he's trying every way he can to undermine the basis for trans people legitimately existing. And he's making stuff up to do it, or using stuff that other people have made up. It's like when racists politely talk about the IQ of black people, quoting made up statistics. It may seem reasonable but it isn't, its fucking racist and we all know that. The Gnome is a fucking transphobe and that is obvious to any trans person.
 
I assume therefore that this person never had their chromosomes checked, which is why they think its so funny. They should - it might give them a nasty surprise.

But it also proves that chromosomes are not the basis for classification of gender/sex because we just don't know unless that person has been tested and they then tell you.

Why is he doing this on a thread about trans people? Clearly he's trying every way he can to undermine the basis for trans people legitimately existing. And he's making stuff up to do it, or using stuff that other people have made up. It's like when racists politely talk about the IQ of black people, quoting made up statistics. It may seem reasonable but it isn't, its fucking racist and we all know that. The Gnome is a fucking transphobe and that is obvious to any trans person.

The point in me asking them that question was to establish how irrelevant chromosomes are when it comes to the overall social construction of gender. Hell we didn't even know chromosomes were a thing until 141 years ago. So any talk of chromosomes with regards to trans issues is just a long-winded red herring.
 
Why should they follow that adage, thats a terrible idea, you are basically telling people to turn a blind eye to abuse, assault and murder.
Why? Because it was said within the context of the call from "most trans activists acting for transgender people" for respect, tolerance and acceptance when trans activists themselves have shown clearly that they themselves have become intolerant, disrespectful and unaccepting. Hence, live and let live. That's the argument to be had. Not the argument about the perceived threat to the existence and the rights of transgender people.

If you're not trans you probably don't understand the chip chip chip of constant undermining of your identity and right to exist - which wasn't even that covert in this case.

Just because it doesn't involve rude words does not mean it's not demeaning. The 30 or so posts they made in the last few pages of this thread surely gives evidence that they came on here with an axe to grind?

And that a lot of that was based around "you don't have a biological basis to exist", which is transphobic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but trans activists advocate for the right of a trans woman, for example, to be categorised as woman. Logically, that advocacy, automatically and effectively, eliminates transgenders. Therefore, the cause per se that trans activists are fighting for on behalf of trans people is what undermines the existence of trans people. Not other people's opposing views on trans activisim.

Don't trans activists want legal and societal recognition and acceptance of transgender as a gender in and of itself and to fight for the rights of that gender? Or, do trans activists just want to fight for a right of all transgender people to be legally and socially recognised as the sex and gender of their choosing thus, effectively eliminating transgenders? Everyone is either male or female. No more transgenders. Is that what trans activists want for transgenders?

Vulgar language and agressive and misplaced calls for a fellow poster to leave is reactionary and just a tiny half-step short of cancellation. All because, referencing poster Cloo, I challenged the credibility and sincerity of most trans activists' call for tolerance and acceptance when most trans activists themselves have clearly shown to have become intolerant of diverging views and opinions. I did not come here with an axe to grind. I just said live and let live.

Sorry, but it is never that "you don't have a biological basis to exist"; it is that "your biological sex preclude you from being of the opposite sex."
 
Why? Because it was said within the context of the call from "most trans activists acting for transgender people" for respect, tolerance and acceptance when trans activists themselves have shown clearly that they themselves have become intolerant, disrespectful and unaccepting. Hence, live and let live. That's the argument to be had. Not the argument about the perceived threat to the existence and the rights of transgender people.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but trans activists advocate for the right of a trans woman, for example, to be categorised as woman. Logically, that advocacy, automatically and effectively, eliminates transgenders. Therefore, the cause per se that trans activists are fighting for on behalf of trans people is what undermines the existence of trans people. Not other people's opposing views on trans activisim.

Don't trans activists want legal and societal recognition and acceptance of transgender as a gender in and of itself and to fight for the rights of that gender? Or, do trans activists just want to fight for a right of all transgender people to be legally and socially recognised as the sex and gender of their choosing thus, effectively eliminating transgenders? Everyone is either male or female. No more transgenders. Is that what trans activists want for transgenders?

Vulgar language and agressive and misplaced calls for a fellow poster to leave is reactionary and just a tiny half-step short of cancellation. All because, referencing poster Cloo, I challenged the credibility and sincerity of most trans activists' call for tolerance and acceptance when most trans activists themselves have clearly shown to have become intolerant of diverging views and opinions. I did not come here with an axe to grind. I just said live and let live.

Sorry, but it is never that "you don't have a biological basis to exist"; it is that "your biological sex preclude you from being of the opposite sex."
Are the trans activists in the room with you now?
 
Can we please just not tolerate this sort of shit any more? It's bigoted crap, not an actual discussion about issues, and it makes several people here feel as if they can't have a place to have a normal discussion without these transphobic weirdos descend on the thread and take it over.

Please. Have they posted anywhere other than this thread, or are they just here to stir the pot in a bigoted way?
This so much. This isn't debate, and urban is not speakers corner anyway (especially not threads like this)
 
Why? Because it was said within the context of the call from "most trans activists acting for transgender people" for respect, tolerance and acceptance when trans activists themselves have shown clearly that they themselves have become intolerant, disrespectful and unaccepting. Hence, live and let live. That's the argument to be had. Not the argument about the perceived threat to the existence and the rights of transgender people.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but trans activists advocate for the right of a trans woman, for example, to be categorised as woman. Logically, that advocacy, automatically and effectively, eliminates transgenders. Therefore, the cause per se that trans activists are fighting for on behalf of trans people is what undermines the existence of trans people. Not other people's opposing views on trans activisim.

Don't trans activists want legal and societal recognition and acceptance of transgender as a gender in and of itself and to fight for the rights of that gender? Or, do trans activists just want to fight for a right of all transgender people to be legally and socially recognised as the sex and gender of their choosing thus, effectively eliminating transgenders? Everyone is either male or female. No more transgenders. Is that what trans activists want for transgenders?

Vulgar language and agressive and misplaced calls for a fellow poster to leave is reactionary and just a tiny half-step short of cancellation. All because, referencing poster Cloo, I challenged the credibility and sincerity of most trans activists' call for tolerance and acceptance when most trans activists themselves have clearly shown to have become intolerant of diverging views and opinions. I did not come here with an axe to grind. I just said live and let live.

Sorry, but it is never that "you don't have a biological basis to exist"; it is that "your biological sex preclude you from being of the opposite sex."
Perceived threat ,its very real and no the argument to be had is not whether people should stand up for trans right, they absolutely should,and as I said your policy of live and let live is telling people to turn a blind eye to vile abuse, threats and violence aimed at themselves or their families or their friends which quite frankly is a ridiculous thing to ask . It is also quite reasonable to be intolerant of bigoted liars ,
 
The point in me asking them that question was to establish how irrelevant chromosomes are when it comes to the overall social construction of gender. Hell we didn't even know chromosomes were a thing until 141 years ago. So any talk of chromosomes with regards to trans issues is just a long-winded red herring.

Chromosomes are our sex markers. They are the determinants of human sex. And you might not like this, but gender construct was and is based on sex; hence, the strong correlation between sex and gender; and hence, the adherence to the current social construct that operates in every single society, culture and other social constructs on the planet from tribes deep in the Amazon to the wokiest wokes in London.

It is only now that gender is being "socialy reconstructed" -- which is great and IMO, part of that social reconstruction of gender is the inclusion of transgender as a gender. Being transgender should not and can not be just some transtion process that has no determination or that can be determined only if you force another change in the current social construct. It should be a properly recognised gender.
Aww booboo. You got yelled at on Twitter. Your poor widdle feefees.

Meanwhile, trans people are four times as likely to be victims of violent crime as cis people.
No. I don't have a twitter account. I watch podcasts on you tube and read papers. And, yeah, I discuss issues with a trans woman friend of mine specifically about her fears about the backlash they seem to be getting generated by -- what they feel -- the extreme form of activism of trans activists in the States.

Just like the LBG of before; trans and trans supporters must work hard to reinforce transgenders' right to a peaceful life. There's no disagreeing with that.
 
Why? Because it was said within the context of the call from "most trans activists acting for transgender people" for respect, tolerance and acceptance when trans activists themselves have shown clearly that they themselves have become intolerant, disrespectful and unaccepting. Hence, live and let live. That's the argument to be had. Not the argument about the perceived threat to the existence and the rights of transgender people.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but trans activists advocate for the right of a trans woman, for example, to be categorised as woman. Logically, that advocacy, automatically and effectively, eliminates transgenders. Therefore, the cause per se that trans activists are fighting for on behalf of trans people is what undermines the existence of trans people. Not other people's opposing views on trans activisim.

Don't trans activists want legal and societal recognition and acceptance of transgender as a gender in and of itself and to fight for the rights of that gender? Or, do trans activists just want to fight for a right of all transgender people to be legally and socially recognised as the sex and gender of their choosing thus, effectively eliminating transgenders? Everyone is either male or female. No more transgenders. Is that what trans activists want for transgenders?

Vulgar language and agressive and misplaced calls for a fellow poster to leave is reactionary and just a tiny half-step short of cancellation. All because, referencing poster Cloo, I challenged the credibility and sincerity of most trans activists' call for tolerance and acceptance when most trans activists themselves have clearly shown to have become intolerant of diverging views and opinions. I did not come here with an axe to grind. I just said live and let live.

Sorry, but it is never that "you don't have a biological basis to exist"; it is that "your biological sex preclude you from being of the opposite sex."
Oh fuck off. All your chromosomes are perma banned.
 
Chromosomes are our sex markers. They are the determinants of human sex. And you might not like this, but gender construct was and is based on sex; hence, the strong correlation between sex and gender; and hence, the adherence to the current social construct that operates in every single society, culture and other social constructs on the planet from tribes deep in the Amazon to the wokiest wokes in London.

Oh, the "woke" word.

Who'd have guessed that would make an appearance?
 
Why? Because it was said within the context of the call from "most trans activists acting for transgender people" for respect, tolerance and acceptance when trans activists themselves have shown clearly that they themselves have become intolerant, disrespectful and unaccepting. Hence, live and let live. That's the argument to be had. Not the argument about the perceived threat to the existence and the rights of transgender people.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but trans activists advocate for the right of a trans woman, for example, to be categorised as woman. Logically, that advocacy, automatically and effectively, eliminates transgenders. Therefore, the cause per se that trans activists are fighting for on behalf of trans people is what undermines the existence of trans people. Not other people's opposing views on trans activisim.

Don't trans activists want legal and societal recognition and acceptance of transgender as a gender in and of itself and to fight for the rights of that gender? Or, do trans activists just want to fight for a right of all transgender people to be legally and socially recognised as the sex and gender of their choosing thus, effectively eliminating transgenders? Everyone is either male or female. No more transgenders. Is that what trans activists want for transgenders?

Vulgar language and agressive and misplaced calls for a fellow poster to leave is reactionary and just a tiny half-step short of cancellation. All because, referencing poster Cloo, I challenged the credibility and sincerity of most trans activists' call for tolerance and acceptance when most trans activists themselves have clearly shown to have become intolerant of diverging views and opinions. I did not come here with an axe to grind. I just said live and let live.

Sorry, but it is never that "you don't have a biological basis to exist"; it is that "your biological sex preclude you from being of the opposite sex."
The thread isn't about debating gender. As you can see from the title, it's about trans people being demonised. It's as though you don't think people have heard your "points" over and over again. You wouldn't go into a pub for the first time and immediately sit at a table full of strangers to try and do a "gotcha" on whatever they're talking about. If you go in like a bull in a china shop, it's tough shit if you're made unwelcome.

And as you've had pointed out to you, "transgender" is not a noun. People aren't "transgenders".
 
In other news, more basic biology just dropped:

ppbc.PNG

This follows discussions over the move by Italy's right wing PM to begin removing lesbian non-birthing mothers from their child's birth certificate. It seems to be widely supported by much of the Gender Critical movement which is understandable because it's perfectly inline with their ideology. If you refuse to accept that a word can have both a biological and a social meaning, and if you think precise definitions of words are more important than people's happiness and social/legal recognition, then of course only a biological parent can be considered a mother or father.

There's also some nasty undercurrents in the murkier end of the movement about this being necessary for safeguarding reasons and 'concerns' that two men seeking to adopt a child may be doing so for predatory reasons.
 
In other news, more basic biology just dropped:

View attachment 383773

This follows discussions over the move by Italy's right wing PM to begin removing lesbian non-birthing mothers from their child's birth certificate. It seems to be widely supported by much of the Gender Critical movement which is understandable because it's perfectly inline with their ideology. If you refuse to accept that a word can have both a biological and a social meaning, and if you think precise definitions of words are more important than people's happiness and social/legal recognition, then of course only a biological parent can be considered a mother or father.

There's also some nasty undercurrents in the murkier end of the movement about this being necessary for safeguarding reasons and 'concerns' that two men seeking to adopt a child may be doing so for predatory reasons.
I think that’s wrapping various different things up in one issue, which is what the socially far right - including Meloni - wants to do.

In terms of birth certificates, it seems fair to say that where the father (or mother) is known, he (or she) should be on it, because they are meant to be accurate legal documents. It doesn’t matter whether the child then goes on to be raised by one man, one woman, two men, or two women, or any combination of. It’s factual that you only have one mother and one father, so until science changes that, those are the two who should be on the certificate - if known. There are already problems with that which aren’t related to anything LGBT - non paternity events etc.

Obviously that accuracy is already complicated by the fact that currently, it’s the mothers spouse that goes on as father or other parent as default, regardless of biological relationship. That’s a very long standing thing, which predates the days of DNA testing, when it was automatically assumed that the spouse of the mother must be the father. So the law is already acting blind (too blind) on that and always has, which is why now that same sex marriage is legal the presumption has been automatically extended to the spouse even if the spouse is female.

That’s all separate from who raises a child. Anybody who would deny a child a loving parent of any sex or sexuality is not someone with the interests of a child at heart. A hell of a lot of perfectly straight parents abuse their own biological children in every way possible.
 
Last edited:
I think that’s wrapping various different things up in one issue, which is what the socially far right - including Meloni - wants to do.

In terms of birth certificates, it seems fair to say that where the father (or mother) is known, he (or she) should be on it, because they are meant to be accurate legal documents. It doesn’t matter whether the child then goes on to be raised by one man, one woman, two men, or two women, or any combination of. It’s factual that you only have one mother and one father, so until science changes that, those are the two who should be on the certificate - if known. There are already problems with that which aren’t related to anything LGBT - non paternity events etc.

Obviously that accuracy is already complicated by the fact that currently, it’s the mothers spouse that goes on as father or other parent as default, regardless of biological relationship. That’s a very long standing thing, which predates the days of DNA testing, when it was automatically assumed that the spouse of the mother must be the father. So the law is already acting blind (too blind) on that and always has, which is why now that same sex marriage is legal the presumption has been automatically extended to the spouse even if the spouse is female.

That’s all separate from who raises a child. Anybody who would deny a child a loving parent of any sex or sexuality is not someone with the interests of a child at heart. A hell of a lot of perfectly straight parents abuse their own biological children in every way possible.

It's actually a record of who the child's parents are and confers legal Parental Responsibility along with other parental rights.

But speaking as someone who was adopted by my step father and therefore has an adoption certificate which doesn't reflect both my biological parents I can confirm that this is not something that has affected my life in the slightest - and I didn't get on very well with my step dad and never really considered him my father when I was growing up. It's just a piece of paper that I've very rarely had to use. So why do you care?
 
All I had to do to become a parent was to have unprotected sex. My brother, who is gay, had to spend over a decade leading up to his 40’s looking for a way to do so, eventually establishing a friendship with a lesbian who didn’t want an anonymous sperm donor. They are better parents than I am, to the extent they actually both like babies. Aside from sometimes finding them cute, I don’t really like babies until they get to about two or three years old. These two people couldn’t be more in love with the child they’ve produced - they’re great.

The idea that gay people - who have to go to lots of very careful planning that straight people do not have to in order to become parents - should be viewed as predators disposed to abuse children is grossly offensive. If anything, reaching arrangements with people you aren’t in love with to produce a biological child, or going through the adoption process, is a very high bar that relatively few abusers would be able to cross, in comparison to those who can just fuck someone and find themselves becoming a parent nine months later.
 
This thread has become very bad tempered. This debate is far too heated already.

Maybe some posters think they are being clever and reasonable, but think - is piling on to a thread about how trans people are being accused of being paedophiles with your thoughts on how trans people should be defined really helpful? It isn't. So please stop.

Can everyone remember please this isn't just a theoretical debate - it's passionately personal day to day issue of survival for some posters. The media climate now is so violently anti trans and that translates to real life violence on the street. People are afraid.
 
Back
Top Bottom