Have to say, assuming he's healthy in all other respects, I think giving a one-armed man the "Bandit" nick is pretty funny. Thanks to an overdose of political correctness these days I guess it wold be OOL. Still difficult to resist a chuckle though.
There was lots of banter when I was growing up, none of it was politically correct, and you wouldnt get away with it today. Although it was never malicious, nobody sulked or cried, everybody tried to give as good as they got. Not having to worry about everything you said was probably a bit more fun.
I totally agree with you, but nowadays where does it start and stop? What was classed as 'Banter' is now considered 'Abuse/UN PC'.
You couldnt make some of it up.
Advice turns schoolgirls into ‘pupils who menstruate’
Government advice on free sanitary products in schools repeatedly referred to “students who menstruate” rather than to “girls”.
A document on the Department for Education (DfE) website detailed how providing menstrual products to girls did not disadvantage anyone under the Equality Act. Its wording angered women’s campaigners, however, who have warned of the dangers of alienating women and girls by using more inclusive gender-neutral language.
The seven-page 2020 memo told of “students who menstruate”, “young people menstruating” and “learners who menstruate”. There was one mention of “girls” and one of “women”, both in the footnotes, and two of “female”.
The wording was changed last night after The Times brought it to the attention of education chiefs. Sources said ministers had not been involved in
My youngest identifies as a man. Has done since he was 13. Goes by the legal name of Mr. First name Samuel. He menstruates. Even though he is most certainly not a "girl".
Schools have a difficult enough job to do. The Government position is correct. The DfE website is not. Not least because under-18s cannot have corrective surgery.
If anyone believes that someone who identifies as a girl but has male genitalia does need sanitary products, and the reverse does not, and believes neither is "disadvantaged" then they are an idiot.
PS. It is important to note that when people say "women's campaigners" they are normally referring to the LGB Alliance. A group of Gay people who believe Trans people should be exterminated.
This last bit is not true
Exterminated is the wrong word.
Forced to revert to the sex they were born with. Regardless of their wishes.
this is also untrue
Here is the founder, speaking on the formation:-
"The main difference is that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals have something in common because of our sexual orientation, that has nothing to do with being trans. We welcome the support of anyone — gay, straight or trans — as long as they support our commitment to freedom of speech and biological definitions of sex. So we are a very broad and accepting group. We will be called transphobic, but we're not."
So-to be clear-will accept trans people on the proviso that they agree that gender at birth is the key issue. Rather than any, er, transgenderism.
And not what the person wishes to be, not what the Law says they are. Not what medications they have taken, not what gender reassignment someone may have had. In short, that you accept that you can never be Trans. It smacks of the "compromise" in some Churches, which say Ministers are allowed to be Gay, provided they promise never to have gay relationships.
Of course there is a place for a separate LGB Group. No-one seriously believes any of the separate Groups are identical.
The LGBA has been going for what, 3 years? What Headline positive stuff has it done for the LGB Community? Anything at all?
Negative stuff? Campaigning/seeking a Judicial Review for Trans people to be excluded from the Equality Act. Campaigning against Trans people, demanding any laws supporting Trans people are changed. Attacking Stonewall for wishing to represent the entire LGBT Community, not just 1 section of it. Regular attacks on the SNP's John Nicholson. Campaigning against Trans people and anyone who is not anti-Trans at Pride marches.
Is it really too much to ask that people live and let live?
I don't expect everyone to agree with Transgenderism. Just to let people live their life in the way they choose. Provided they are not harming anyone else.
"The main difference is that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals have something in common because of our sexual orientation, that has nothing to do with being trans. We welcome the support of anyone — gay, straight or trans — as long as they support our commitment to freedom of speech and biological definitions of sex. So we are a very broad and accepting group. We will be called transphobic, but we're not."
So-to be clear-will accept trans people on the proviso that they agree that gender at birth is the key issue. Rather than any, er, transgenderism.
@Essexphil , I am not trying to get into an argument with you, I would feel as strongly as you if it affected one of my children and there is no easy answer, I just feel the 'pile on' if anyone says anything critical of trans rights in OTT and some of the language used is emotive and untrue.
The LGBA is ...... 'forcing people to revert to the sex they were born with'..... this implies they want anyone who has transitioned to transition back, they are not advocating this, i am sure there are loonies on this side just as there are radical Trans activists who advocate 'getting rid of all TERFs'. Neither are correct or justified IMO.
People are free to identify as whichever gender they want and it is a very difficult subject, I am miles away from having any answers and have a huge amount of sympathy with anyone who is unsure, unhappy with the body they are in.
"The main difference is that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals have something in common because of our sexual orientation, that has nothing to do with being trans. We welcome the support of anyone — gay, straight or trans — as long as they support our commitment to freedom of speech and biological definitions of sex. So we are a very broad and accepting group. We will be called transphobic, but we're not."
So-to be clear-will accept trans people on the proviso that they agree that gender at birth is the key issue. Rather than any, er, transgenderism.
@Essexphil , I am not trying to get into an argument with you, I would feel as strongly as you if it affected one of my children and there is no easy answer, I just feel the 'pile on' if anyone says anything critical of trans rights in OTT and some of the language used is emotive and untrue.
The LGBA is ...... 'forcing people to revert to the sex they were born with'..... this implies they want anyone who has transitioned to transition back, they are not advocating this, i am sure there are loonies on this side just as there are radical Trans activists who advocate 'getting rid of all TERFs'. Neither are correct or justified IMO.
People are free to identify as whichever gender they want and it is a very difficult subject, I am miles away from having any answers and have a huge amount of sympathy with anyone who is unsure, unhappy with the body they are in.
I've known you a lot of years, and have always found you to be as open-minded as that email shows.
There will always people uncomfortable with the whole idea of Trans. Likewise, it is undoubtedly true that some of the banners criticising "Terfs" (or, to use the term such people prefer, "gender critical") is, at best, unhelpful on various levels.
Purely personally, separate from my Child, I am uncomfortable with some labels Trans people apply to non-Trans people. As an example, I fully understand why Trans people use "Cis-gender" in relation to Trans people. But it comes over as a bit preachy to others. Formal irrevocable gender reassignment surgery for Minors? Rarely, or Never seem the only 2 options for me.
The thing I am trying to get across is this. I am a "live and let live", woolly Liberal. If a certain subsection of the LGB Community want to separate their campaigns from Trans, fine. If they want to criticise individual Trans people or Trans policies or pro-Trans radical feminists, fine again. Campaigning against SNP policy in relation to treatment of Trans in certain respects, still fine. That is all part of living in a Democracy.
What is not fine is trying to eradicate Trans. What is not fine is going to Pride marches to campaign against LGBT marches, against the wishes of the organisers. That includes not only Trans people, but radical feminists who do not agree with Trans Exclusion. What is not fine is persecuting any Minority just because they disagree with them.
Not least because that is what the whole LGBT Community, and all of its constituent parts, have been trying to stop for a very long time.
The best bit of Pride was always watching groups of Minorites being proud of who they are. Celebrating it with kindred spirits. And the sheer joy. Not looking around nervously for the haters.
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that "people are free to identify as whichever gender they want."
Long may it continue.
Like you, I don't know the answers. But I am equally sure that they are not to be found in the LGB Alliance.
To lighten the mood of this thread a little, thought I would share a quick story about Samuel when he was at school.
He was the first Trans person at the School. And the School were great. There were plenty of times they used "she" rather than he/they-but never deliberately, and never provocatively. As I said on more than 1 occasion, so long as it was accidental, never had a problem with it.
Anyhow, about 2 years later, the 2nd Trans pupil arrived. School asked Sam to mentor him/her. His reply?
No. I am not defined by my Gender. It is just 1 of many things that make me what I am. Same goes for the other person. But do tell them this. If, at any stage, they are being bullied, they should ask themselves this. Are they being bullied because they are getting on people's nerves, or purely because they are Trans? If the former, tough. If it is the latter, tell him/her to find me. And I will punch them.
DfE reviews advice that ‘erased girls’ after backlash
Helen Joyce, of women’s campaign group Sex Matters, said the language “reduces girls to their bodily functions” with “ordinary words” replaced by “ludicrous expressions”. The NHS has similarly been under fire for sidelining words such as ‘women’ and ‘female’ in online guidance on cancer.
Web content addressing ovarian, womb, and cervical cancer has been rewritten in gender-neutral language, prompting accusations that it is an attempt to ‘erase women’.
DfE reviews advice that ‘erased girls’ after backlash
Helen Joyce, of women’s campaign group Sex Matters, said the language “reduces girls to their bodily functions” with “ordinary words” replaced by “ludicrous expressions”. The NHS has similarly been under fire for sidelining words such as ‘women’ and ‘female’ in online guidance on cancer.
Web content addressing ovarian, womb, and cervical cancer has been rewritten in gender-neutral language, prompting accusations that it is an attempt to ‘erase women’.
You are now quoting a set of Christian fundamentalists. Quoting an organisation who are an offshoot of the LGBA.
Let's start with the Christian Institute. A bunch of Christian extreme fundamentalists. Who believe in the literal perfection of the bible. And that all people must be forced to live the way they believe the Bible teaches.
That would be the Group that have campaigned for the right to discriminate against gay people. That supported Lilian Ladele's right as a Registrar to refuse to process same-sex marriages. That supported the right not to provide cake to gay people.
Here is their "Christian" stance on Trans people. On their website:-
"Transgender ideology claims that each person has a ‘gender identity’ (an internal sense of gender) which may or may not align with their biological sex. The ‘real you’ is what you feel it to be on the inside.
Underlying this movement is a radical form of self-determination, with its roots in Gnosticism. Subjective feelings overriding objective, biological, genetic reality. Ultimately, it seeks to completely destroy the distinction between men and women that God in his wisdom has created....
A man cannot become a woman. A woman cannot become a man. It is not loving to affirm the idea that a person is ‘trapped in the wrong body’ – especially when this could encourage them to undergo medical interventions that are dangerous both physically and psychologically. As Christians we are to speak the truth in love, applying biblical principles without compromise but with compassion (Ephesians 4:15); ultimately pointing them to life-changing repentance and faith in Christ."
Haters. Of the Trump-supporting variety.
Then "Sex Matters".
The clue is in the name. This group believe that biological sex is the only thing that matters when it comes to gender. Founded by Maya Forstater. A woman famous for successfully arguing that her Trans hate speech was capable of amounting to a "philosophical belief". Supported by (of course) the same well-known author.
Let me be clear.
You can continue to publicise the works and thoughts of bigots. This is the 4th time you have done so.
DfE reviews advice that ‘erased girls’ after backlash
Helen Joyce, of women’s campaign group Sex Matters, said the language “reduces girls to their bodily functions” with “ordinary words” replaced by “ludicrous expressions”. The NHS has similarly been under fire for sidelining words such as ‘women’ and ‘female’ in online guidance on cancer.
Web content addressing ovarian, womb, and cervical cancer has been rewritten in gender-neutral language, prompting accusations that it is an attempt to ‘erase women’.
You are now quoting a set of Christian fundamentalists. Quoting an organisation who are an offshoot of the LGBA.
Let's start with the Christian Institute. A bunch of Christian extreme fundamentalists. Who believe in the literal perfection of the bible. And that all people must be forced to live the way they believe the Bible teaches.
That would be the Group that have campaigned for the right to discriminate against gay people. That supported Lilian Ladele's right as a Registrar to refuse to process same-sex marriages. That supported the right not to provide cake to gay people.
Here is their "Christian" stance on Trans people. On their website:-
"Transgender ideology claims that each person has a ‘gender identity’ (an internal sense of gender) which may or may not align with their biological sex. The ‘real you’ is what you feel it to be on the inside.
Underlying this movement is a radical form of self-determination, with its roots in Gnosticism. Subjective feelings overriding objective, biological, genetic reality. Ultimately, it seeks to completely destroy the distinction between men and women that God in his wisdom has created....
A man cannot become a woman. A woman cannot become a man. It is not loving to affirm the idea that a person is ‘trapped in the wrong body’ – especially when this could encourage them to undergo medical interventions that are dangerous both physically and psychologically. As Christians we are to speak the truth in love, applying biblical principles without compromise but with compassion (Ephesians 4:15); ultimately pointing them to life-changing repentance and faith in Christ."
Haters. Of the Trump-supporting variety.
Then "Sex Matters".
The clue is in the name. This group believe that biological sex is the only thing that matters when it comes to gender. Founded by Maya Forstater. A woman famous for successfully arguing that her Trans hate speech was capable of amounting to a "philosophical belief". Supported by (of course) the same well-known author.
Let me be clear.
You can continue to publicise the works and thoughts of bigots. This is the 4th time you have done so.
But I will have nothing further to do with you.
It wasnt my intention to quote any extremist organisation. My point was that I disagreed with the terminology used. Whilst I disagreed with the terminology, I wasnt suggesting that it should be amended in a way that upset anyone. The fact that it is being amended is probably proof that I was not alone in this opinion. It was not my intention to cause you any upset. I will be more careful in who I quote. Although in my defence, most people may think they will be pretty safe quoting what would appear at face value to be a Chistian organisation.
DfE reviews advice that ‘erased girls’ after backlash
Helen Joyce, of women’s campaign group Sex Matters, said the language “reduces girls to their bodily functions” with “ordinary words” replaced by “ludicrous expressions”. The NHS has similarly been under fire for sidelining words such as ‘women’ and ‘female’ in online guidance on cancer.
Web content addressing ovarian, womb, and cervical cancer has been rewritten in gender-neutral language, prompting accusations that it is an attempt to ‘erase women’.
You are now quoting a set of Christian fundamentalists. Quoting an organisation who are an offshoot of the LGBA.
Let's start with the Christian Institute. A bunch of Christian extreme fundamentalists. Who believe in the literal perfection of the bible. And that all people must be forced to live the way they believe the Bible teaches.
That would be the Group that have campaigned for the right to discriminate against gay people. That supported Lilian Ladele's right as a Registrar to refuse to process same-sex marriages. That supported the right not to provide cake to gay people.
Here is their "Christian" stance on Trans people. On their website:-
"Transgender ideology claims that each person has a ‘gender identity’ (an internal sense of gender) which may or may not align with their biological sex. The ‘real you’ is what you feel it to be on the inside.
Underlying this movement is a radical form of self-determination, with its roots in Gnosticism. Subjective feelings overriding objective, biological, genetic reality. Ultimately, it seeks to completely destroy the distinction between men and women that God in his wisdom has created....
A man cannot become a woman. A woman cannot become a man. It is not loving to affirm the idea that a person is ‘trapped in the wrong body’ – especially when this could encourage them to undergo medical interventions that are dangerous both physically and psychologically. As Christians we are to speak the truth in love, applying biblical principles without compromise but with compassion (Ephesians 4:15); ultimately pointing them to life-changing repentance and faith in Christ."
Haters. Of the Trump-supporting variety.
Then "Sex Matters".
The clue is in the name. This group believe that biological sex is the only thing that matters when it comes to gender. Founded by Maya Forstater. A woman famous for successfully arguing that her Trans hate speech was capable of amounting to a "philosophical belief". Supported by (of course) the same well-known author.
Let me be clear.
You can continue to publicise the works and thoughts of bigots. This is the 4th time you have done so.
But I will have nothing further to do with you.
It wasnt my intention to quote any extremist organisation. My point was that I disagreed with the terminology used. Whilst I disagreed with the terminology, I wasnt suggesting that it should be amended in a way that upset anyone. The fact that it is being amended is probably proof that I was not alone in this opinion. It was not my intention to cause you any upset. I will be more careful in who I quote. Although in my defence, most people may think they will be pretty safe quoting what would appear at face value to be a Chistian organisation.
But it is the 4th time. 4th!
I have pointed out multiple times that, in order to support your belief, you keep quoting extremist organisations. The 1st time-anyone can do that. But the 2nd? The 3rd? The 4th?
You can persist in your belief that Doctors should concentrate on, for example, cervical cancer in relation to people who present as women. Me? I think the 1st key factor is whether they have a cervix. Not to deny whether someone should or should not be called a Woman.
Imagine if you held a view that some people might find racist. Not all, but some. And it was certainly true not all people who held that view were indeed racist.
But then you quoted the views of people who had campaigned for the right to abuse a particular race. To deny they should exist. To campaign that the Equality Act should be amended so that particular Race should not be regarded as a genuine Minority, and that everyone should be legally entitled to abuse them whenever they felt like it. 4 times. In exactly the same way.
IMHO, 90+% of people secretly couldn't care much (if at all) about Trans people. For many, it's a bit like a TV programme they don't want to watch.
I am equally sure that some people genuinely don't like the fact that the World is changing, thus necessitating change elsewhere.
We have little or no idea how many Trans people there are in the UK. It also depends on how you define Trans. The Government believe it is somewhere between 200,000-500,000 people. Stonewall believes 600,000. It could be higher. Or lower. What is certain is that the numbers are (rightly or wrongly) increasing rapidly.
@Haysie. You get a bee in your bonnet about lots of things. It is part of who you are.
The trouble you have is that just about everyone else expressing opinions publicly on this issue have a very real, extreme agenda. Which is why, when you quote people, they tend to be hate-filled people. Do you not realise that?
Not because there aren't perfectly normal, rational people who share your views. There are. But they have just prioritised "live and let live" over making their views public. In part, because of the hate spewing from people who do.
DfE reviews advice that ‘erased girls’ after backlash
Helen Joyce, of women’s campaign group Sex Matters, said the language “reduces girls to their bodily functions” with “ordinary words” replaced by “ludicrous expressions”. The NHS has similarly been under fire for sidelining words such as ‘women’ and ‘female’ in online guidance on cancer.
Web content addressing ovarian, womb, and cervical cancer has been rewritten in gender-neutral language, prompting accusations that it is an attempt to ‘erase women’.
You are now quoting a set of Christian fundamentalists. Quoting an organisation who are an offshoot of the LGBA.
Let's start with the Christian Institute. A bunch of Christian extreme fundamentalists. Who believe in the literal perfection of the bible. And that all people must be forced to live the way they believe the Bible teaches.
That would be the Group that have campaigned for the right to discriminate against gay people. That supported Lilian Ladele's right as a Registrar to refuse to process same-sex marriages. That supported the right not to provide cake to gay people.
Here is their "Christian" stance on Trans people. On their website:-
"Transgender ideology claims that each person has a ‘gender identity’ (an internal sense of gender) which may or may not align with their biological sex. The ‘real you’ is what you feel it to be on the inside.
Underlying this movement is a radical form of self-determination, with its roots in Gnosticism. Subjective feelings overriding objective, biological, genetic reality. Ultimately, it seeks to completely destroy the distinction between men and women that God in his wisdom has created....
A man cannot become a woman. A woman cannot become a man. It is not loving to affirm the idea that a person is ‘trapped in the wrong body’ – especially when this could encourage them to undergo medical interventions that are dangerous both physically and psychologically. As Christians we are to speak the truth in love, applying biblical principles without compromise but with compassion (Ephesians 4:15); ultimately pointing them to life-changing repentance and faith in Christ."
Haters. Of the Trump-supporting variety.
Then "Sex Matters".
The clue is in the name. This group believe that biological sex is the only thing that matters when it comes to gender. Founded by Maya Forstater. A woman famous for successfully arguing that her Trans hate speech was capable of amounting to a "philosophical belief". Supported by (of course) the same well-known author.
Let me be clear.
You can continue to publicise the works and thoughts of bigots. This is the 4th time you have done so.
But I will have nothing further to do with you.
It wasnt my intention to quote any extremist organisation. My point was that I disagreed with the terminology used. Whilst I disagreed with the terminology, I wasnt suggesting that it should be amended in a way that upset anyone. The fact that it is being amended is probably proof that I was not alone in this opinion. It was not my intention to cause you any upset. I will be more careful in who I quote. Although in my defence, most people may think they will be pretty safe quoting what would appear at face value to be a Chistian organisation.
But it is the 4th time. 4th!
I have pointed out multiple times that, in order to support your belief, you keep quoting extremist organisations. The 1st time-anyone can do that. But the 2nd? The 3rd? The 4th?
You can persist in your belief that Doctors should concentrate on, for example, cervical cancer in relation to people who present as women. Me? I think the 1st key factor is whether they have a cervix. Not to deny whether someone should or should not be called a Woman.
Imagine if you held a view that some people might find racist. Not all, but some. And it was certainly true not all people who held that view were indeed racist.
But then you quoted the views of people who had campaigned for the right to abuse a particular race. To deny they should exist. To campaign that the Equality Act should be amended so that particular Race should not be regarded as a genuine Minority, and that everyone should be legally entitled to abuse them whenever they felt like it. 4 times. In exactly the same way.
Comments
So-to be clear-will accept trans people on the proviso that they agree that gender at birth is the key issue. Rather than any, er, transgenderism.
@Essexphil , I am not trying to get into an argument with you, I would feel as strongly as you if it affected one of my children and there is no easy answer, I just feel the 'pile on' if anyone says anything critical of trans rights in OTT and some of the language used is emotive and untrue.
The LGBA is ...... 'forcing people to revert to the sex they were born with'..... this implies they want anyone who has transitioned to transition back, they are not advocating this, i am sure there are loonies on this side just as there are radical Trans activists who advocate 'getting rid of all TERFs'. Neither are correct or justified IMO.
People are free to identify as whichever gender they want and it is a very difficult subject, I am miles away from having any answers and have a huge amount of sympathy with anyone who is unsure, unhappy with the body they are in.
I've known you a lot of years, and have always found you to be as open-minded as that email shows.
There will always people uncomfortable with the whole idea of Trans. Likewise, it is undoubtedly true that some of the banners criticising "Terfs" (or, to use the term such people prefer, "gender critical") is, at best, unhelpful on various levels.
Purely personally, separate from my Child, I am uncomfortable with some labels Trans people apply to non-Trans people. As an example, I fully understand why Trans people use "Cis-gender" in relation to Trans people. But it comes over as a bit preachy to others. Formal irrevocable gender reassignment surgery for Minors? Rarely, or Never seem the only 2 options for me.
The thing I am trying to get across is this. I am a "live and let live", woolly Liberal. If a certain subsection of the LGB Community want to separate their campaigns from Trans, fine. If they want to criticise individual Trans people or Trans policies or pro-Trans radical feminists, fine again. Campaigning against SNP policy in relation to treatment of Trans in certain respects, still fine. That is all part of living in a Democracy.
What is not fine is trying to eradicate Trans. What is not fine is going to Pride marches to campaign against LGBT marches, against the wishes of the organisers. That includes not only Trans people, but radical feminists who do not agree with Trans Exclusion. What is not fine is persecuting any Minority just because they disagree with them.
Not least because that is what the whole LGBT Community, and all of its constituent parts, have been trying to stop for a very long time.
The best bit of Pride was always watching groups of Minorites being proud of who they are. Celebrating it with kindred spirits. And the sheer joy. Not looking around nervously for the haters.
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that "people are free to identify as whichever gender they want."
Long may it continue.
Like you, I don't know the answers. But I am equally sure that they are not to be found in the LGB Alliance.
He was the first Trans person at the School. And the School were great. There were plenty of times they used "she" rather than he/they-but never deliberately, and never provocatively. As I said on more than 1 occasion, so long as it was accidental, never had a problem with it.
Anyhow, about 2 years later, the 2nd Trans pupil arrived. School asked Sam to mentor him/her. His reply?
No. I am not defined by my Gender. It is just 1 of many things that make me what I am. Same goes for the other person. But do tell them this. If, at any stage, they are being bullied, they should ask themselves this. Are they being bullied because they are getting on people's nerves, or purely because they are Trans? If the former, tough. If it is the latter, tell him/her to find me. And I will punch them.
Helen Joyce, of women’s campaign group Sex Matters, said the language “reduces girls to their bodily functions” with “ordinary words” replaced by “ludicrous expressions”.
The NHS has similarly been under fire for sidelining words such as ‘women’ and ‘female’ in online guidance on cancer.
Web content addressing ovarian, womb, and cervical cancer has been rewritten in gender-neutral language, prompting accusations that it is an attempt to ‘erase women’.
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/dfe-reviews-advice-that-erased-girls-after-backlash/
You are now quoting a set of Christian fundamentalists. Quoting an organisation who are an offshoot of the LGBA.
Let's start with the Christian Institute. A bunch of Christian extreme fundamentalists. Who believe in the literal perfection of the bible. And that all people must be forced to live the way they believe the Bible teaches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Institute
That would be the Group that have campaigned for the right to discriminate against gay people. That supported Lilian Ladele's right as a Registrar to refuse to process same-sex marriages. That supported the right not to provide cake to gay people.
Here is their "Christian" stance on Trans people. On their website:-
"Transgender ideology claims that each person has a ‘gender identity’ (an internal sense of gender) which may or may not align with their biological sex. The ‘real you’ is what you feel it to be on the inside.
Underlying this movement is a radical form of self-determination, with its roots in Gnosticism. Subjective feelings overriding objective, biological, genetic reality. Ultimately, it seeks to completely destroy the distinction between men and women that God in his wisdom has created....
A man cannot become a woman. A woman cannot become a man. It is not loving to affirm the idea that a person is ‘trapped in the wrong body’ – especially when this could encourage them to undergo medical interventions that are dangerous both physically and psychologically. As Christians we are to speak the truth in love, applying biblical principles without compromise but with compassion (Ephesians 4:15); ultimately pointing them to life-changing repentance and faith in Christ."
Haters. Of the Trump-supporting variety.
Then "Sex Matters".
The clue is in the name. This group believe that biological sex is the only thing that matters when it comes to gender. Founded by Maya Forstater. A woman famous for successfully arguing that her Trans hate speech was capable of amounting to a "philosophical belief". Supported by (of course) the same well-known author.
Let me be clear.
You can continue to publicise the works and thoughts of bigots. This is the 4th time you have done so.
But I will have nothing further to do with you.
My point was that I disagreed with the terminology used.
Whilst I disagreed with the terminology, I wasnt suggesting that it should be amended in a way that upset anyone.
The fact that it is being amended is probably proof that I was not alone in this opinion.
It was not my intention to cause you any upset.
I will be more careful in who I quote.
Although in my defence, most people may think they will be pretty safe quoting what would appear at face value to be a Chistian organisation.
I have pointed out multiple times that, in order to support your belief, you keep quoting extremist organisations. The 1st time-anyone can do that. But the 2nd? The 3rd? The 4th?
You can persist in your belief that Doctors should concentrate on, for example, cervical cancer in relation to people who present as women. Me? I think the 1st key factor is whether they have a cervix. Not to deny whether someone should or should not be called a Woman.
Imagine if you held a view that some people might find racist. Not all, but some. And it was certainly true not all people who held that view were indeed racist.
But then you quoted the views of people who had campaigned for the right to abuse a particular race. To deny they should exist. To campaign that the Equality Act should be amended so that particular Race should not be regarded as a genuine Minority, and that everyone should be legally entitled to abuse them whenever they felt like it. 4 times. In exactly the same way.
Wouldn't make that person a racist.
Would mean that I would have a problem.
IMHO, 90+% of people secretly couldn't care much (if at all) about Trans people. For many, it's a bit like a TV programme they don't want to watch.
I am equally sure that some people genuinely don't like the fact that the World is changing, thus necessitating change elsewhere.
We have little or no idea how many Trans people there are in the UK. It also depends on how you define Trans. The Government believe it is somewhere between 200,000-500,000 people. Stonewall believes 600,000. It could be higher. Or lower. What is certain is that the numbers are (rightly or wrongly) increasing rapidly.
@Haysie. You get a bee in your bonnet about lots of things. It is part of who you are.
The trouble you have is that just about everyone else expressing opinions publicly on this issue have a very real, extreme agenda. Which is why, when you quote people, they tend to be hate-filled people. Do you not realise that?
Not because there aren't perfectly normal, rational people who share your views. There are. But they have just prioritised "live and let live" over making their views public. In part, because of the hate spewing from people who do.