Police investigate UK man for his thinking Watch

This discussion is closed.
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#181
Report 1 month ago
#181
(Original post by Good bloke)
So you think surgery can change a fully-functioning man into a fully-functioning woman? And vice versa. has that ever been done?
"Fully functioning" means different things to different people. Most people who undergo sex reassignment surgery feel its made a positive change to their lives.

(Original post by generallee)
And it isn't as though, even if "successful," it makes that person a real man or a real woman. It doesn't. There is no surgery on the planet that can offer a "cure" so as to make someone born with a penis able to bear a child in their post modern, pretend womb, or a woman born with a vagina able to inseminate another woman through their post modern, pretend penis.
This is just a BS no-true-scotsman argument. Medical science always has limitations, that doesn't mean we simply refuse to treat patients just because we can't 100% fix everything that might be wrong with them.

(Original post by Good bloke)
That is a pretty dishonest response, to be frank, which ignores a number of salient points for the sake of a cute dismissal. Disabled toilets are sex neutral because they accommodate only one user (with space for an invited carer and specialist adaptations). Homes have sex neutral toilets because the public safety question of predation by strangers is not an issue in homes, neither is there the issue of low throughput by female users causing queues in public spaces.
As I just said in my post (in the bit you carefully edited out), I agree that a simple solution isn't necessarily going to work for this particular issue. Since it's barely relevant to the thread topic though, I don't see the point in debating it further.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#182
Report 1 month ago
#182
(Original post by Dez)
"Fully functioning" means different things to different people. Most people who undergo sex reassignment surgery feel its made a positive change to their lives.
Well, no it doesn't. Fully-functioning means what it says. What you describe is 'not fully-functioning at all but it is the best I can achieve'. Or, in this context, 'I'd like to be a girl and I know this isn't achieveable but at least I can look a bit like one'.
0
Acsel
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#183
Report 1 month ago
#183
(Original post by jameswhughes)
That's a terrible way to defend it, just because it hadn't been illegal at the time to remove your child's genitals hardly means that it was ok to do so.
Once again, I'm not defending it. I'm pointing out the factual incorrectness of the claim. For several pages, they've been arguing about whether this person did something illegal or not. I'm simply saying that a law wasn't broken, therefore it wasn't illegal. I'm not defending the actions or taking sides (and am not even familiar with all the details). I'm simply saying you can't claim it was illegal and also say that it wasn't a law at the time. You can have one or the other, not both.
1
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#184
Report 1 month ago
#184
(Original post by Dez)
This is just a BS no-true-scotsman argument. Medical science always has limitations, that doesn't mean we simply refuse to treat patients just because we can't 100% fix everything that might be wrong with them.
No, YOUR "gender is a socal construct" post modern dogma is the BS argument. And it is truly dogma because not subject to proof or disproof but divinely revealed by "gender studies" pseudo academics.

I don't accept that we are what we self identify as, that if I say I am Napoleon, I am Napoloeon and get everyone to treat me as such and call me Napoleonphobic if I don't, and get me investigated by the police. I don't accept that at all, because I am not Napoloeon and to consider myself so to be would be a mental illness.

But let's accept your premise for the sake of argument, let's say that gender IS a socal construct. The uncomofrtable truth for the trans "community" is that the vast majority of westerners (let alone the whole of humanity) do NOT accept them as real mean and real women. Trans individuals are regarded by most of "society" as neither one thing nor the other. That is how they are consructed to be, even if the Wokestapo try to enforce a different social outcome by enlisting the police to ensure compliance to "acceptable" thinking.

So even in its own terms your argument is total bo11ocks.
1
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#185
Report 1 month ago
#185
(Original post by generallee)
No, YOUR "gender is a socal construct" post modern dogma is the BS argument. And it is truly dogma because not subject to proof or disproof but divinely revealed by "gender studies" pseudo academics.

I don't accept that we are what we self identify as, that if I say I am Napoleon, I am Napoloeon and get everyone to treat me as such and call me Napoleonphobic if I don't, and get me investigated by the police. I don't accept that at all, because I am not Napoloeon and to consider myself so to be would be a mental illness.

But let's accept your premise for the sake of argument, let's say that gender IS a socal construct. The uncomofrtable truth for the trans "community" is that the vast majority of westerners (let alone the whole of humanity) do NOT accept them as real mean and real women. Trans individuals are regarded by most of "society" as neither one thing nor the other. That is how they are consructed to be, even if the Wokestapo try to enforce a different social outcome by enlisting the police to ensure compliance to "acceptable" thinking.

So even in its own terms your argument is total bo11ocks.
Wokestapo 😂😂😂

Stealing that one
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#186
Report 1 month ago
#186
(Original post by Acsel)
I'm just pointing out that you are continuously claiming what she did was illegal, but under the circumstances you yourself described no law was broken. What you think of it morally and all your personal opinions are irrelevant. That's just how laws work.

But yes, if murder wasn't illegal, you murdered someone, and later the law was changed, you wouldn't become a criminal. Claiming someone is a criminal because something they did in the past has now become a crime is just plain silly. Like I said, that's literally all I'm pointing out.




It's not like you're doing a remotely good job of arguing your point. There's been no change on either side the entire thread.
What she did was illegal and still is illegal in the UK. Nothing I said about that is wrong.

This is TSR and the internet - when the hell is there ever? But I guess if there were people like you couldn't come in and be our saviors, right?
0
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#187
Report 1 month ago
#187
The child in question was 16 when they undertook the surgery. 16 year olds can consent to their own medical treatment. Her actions were perfectly legal at the time and the child chose her own path.
The procedure is illegal in the UK. I never said anything else. That is why she did it in Thailand.

Best to wait and see what the conclusions are, but clearly there are enough people in the world that give a damn about supporting trans people for charities like Mermaids to exist.
People believed the earth was flat and anti-vaxx was a thing. Good on you, such a great argument "others support it".

I'm not saying it's made up, but the accusations that what she did was illegal are baseless. Otherwise, she'd have been tried and convicted by now, it happened years ago.
What she did is illegal in the UK hence the need to go to Thailand.

So boobs don't exist? :erm:
Utterly pointless comment.

It's not really relevant to this thread so I don't think it's worth continuing on this train of thought. You're right that there isn't necessarily a simple solution to this, but TBH gender neutral toilets don't need to be that much of a stretch. Pretty much every home has one, and most disabled loos are also usable by both genders.
Do you not understand or are you unwilling to understand? How on earth can you compare public toilets with cubicles inside a shared area to your private bathroom at home? It is beyond me how supposedly (lets's assume at least moderately) intelligent people think this comparison is a good point to make. I see it all the time with this issue. Same goes for disabled toilets or toilets in cafes - there is a single room. Totally different situation.

It is relevant to some degree. And it truly shows people's true colors. Either you care more for perceived feelings of a tiny minority and disregard all the evidence on the matter regarding the effects on girls and women, or you're not a virtue signalling waste of space. Girls require female only toilets. You can look up the statistics of sexual assault and violence on this. You can look at what charities do in Africa for example, but somehow in the West girls don't need it, because what, we are sooooo progressive. Listen to yourself.

Evidence of doctors being bullied into changing how they work? The NHS controls what treatments are available and which are not, individual doctors certainly have a say in this but they can't work outside their employers' remit.
Yes. Again, I find it absolutely astounding that you seem unaware of this. It's almost as if you decided to follow the cult and shut off contradictions and if they do arise straight out deny them. Just an article from a few days ago.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...waps-0v28x07v8

Many people have been saying it for some time, yet they are always dismissed as "bigots" and "terfs" and "transphobes". If you honestly think your side is playing fair, then sorry, but you are delusional. Trans activists bully and harass those that speak up. A lecturer had piss over her door at university because she spoke out. A meeting in Bristol was harassed by men in balaclavas trying to prevent women entering. If you were on the right side of history, you a) wouldn't need to repeat that so often and b) you wouldn't need to apply tactics of bullying, fear and intimidation.

So if somebody sues Nurofen tomorrow because it didn't cure their headache does that prove that paracetamol is harmful?
So instead of invesitgating the merits of this potentially crucial information regarding puberty blockers, you vaguely dismiss it. Not surprised at all re my earlier comment about avoiding contradictions and denial.

There's a lot of misrepresentation on both sides, really. But strangely enough it's only one side that continually argues that a bunch of armchair activists must know better than WHO, the NHS, and basically every medical professional in the field who's worth a damn.
Yes, like none of these insitutions failed children with anti-vaxx and repressed memory syndrome. And again the denial - there are plenty of professionals who speak up against this. You just choose not to listen to them, to label them bigots and transphobes.

That study does not support your conclusion. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn...b_6160626.html
I give you a link and you reply with an opinion piece written by an activist. You can simply look at the actual number of suicides. They do not go down post transition. They even go up in some cases.

All I promote is what's recommended by scientific bodies, what has been proven to work in prior cases and what is still the best solution to an otherwise awful problem to deal with. It may not be a perfect solution by any means but neither is chemotherapy, and there's no army of rabid twitter posters trying to ban that.
No, it is not. GIDS has on multiple issues actually contradicted what lobby groups like Mermaids push. You are part of the agenda that creates social contagion. You are promoting child abuse. You cannot run away from that.

A psychiatrist commenting on biology? Yeah, clearly that's something we should focus on instead of the many, many medical professionals who disagree with him. :beard:
So it is not a psychiatric issue, is it? And as I said, you shut your eyes and listen to those who say what you want to hear. You are deluded.
0
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#188
Report 1 month ago
#188
(Original post by Dez)
"Fully functioning" means different things to different people. Most people who undergo sex reassignment surgery feel its made a positive change to their lives.



This is just a BS no-true-scotsman argument. Medical science always has limitations, that doesn't mean we simply refuse to treat patients just because we can't 100% fix everything that might be wrong with them.



As I just said in my post (in the bit you carefully edited out), I agree that a simple solution isn't necessarily going to work for this particular issue. Since it's barely relevant to the thread topic though, I don't see the point in debating it further.
You are lying again. Long term results of SRS are not positive. Short term they feel something has done, but in the end nothing changes. Suicide rates remain the same. Because you haven't actually cured anything. And you are just using world salad. No, fully-functioning doesn't mean different things to different people. It has a very specific, clear definition.

Then again, trans activists hate clear definitions, don't you.

ps woman - an adult human female.
0
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#189
Report 1 month ago
#189
(Original post by Acsel)
Once again, I'm not defending it. I'm pointing out the factual incorrectness of the claim. For several pages, they've been arguing about whether this person did something illegal or not. I'm simply saying that a law wasn't broken, therefore it wasn't illegal. I'm not defending the actions or taking sides (and am not even familiar with all the details). I'm simply saying you can't claim it was illegal and also say that it wasn't a law at the time. You can have one or the other, not both.
My claim is not factually incorrect. Susie Green did something that was illegal in the UK. She had to leave the country to do it.
0
Acsel
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#190
Report 1 month ago
#190
(Original post by yudothis)
What she did was illegal and still is illegal in the UK. Nothing I said about that is wrong.
I picked a random quote that says otherwise.

(Original post by yudothis)
It's led by a woman who illegally castrated her son
She did not illegally castrate her son. She went to a country and did something that was not illegal at the time. The fact that it's illegal in the UK is competely irrelevant. Her actions, while questionable, were legal. This should be evidence by how you say the law was changed to actually make it illegal.

(Original post by yudothis)
My claim is not factually incorrect. Susie Green did something that was illegal in the UK. She had to leave the country to do it.
No, that's not how laws work. Doing something in Thailand that's illegal in the UK does not make her susceptible to UK law. What she did was illegal in the UK, but she was not in the UK. At the time, she did something that was not illegal in the country where she was. Therefore it's not a crime. I don't know what's so difficult to understand about this.

If I moved to a country where drug use was legal, that wouldn't make me a UK criminal. People who go to Amsterdam to take advantage of more relaxed drug laws don't get arrested when they come back in the UK for example. UK law applies in the UK only (with some exceptions that are totally irrelevant here).

You don't have to agree with what she did, but this is not really up for debate. Continuously claiming that she broke the law, despite it not being illegal at the time in the place she went, is simply incorrect.
0
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#191
Report 1 month ago
#191
(Original post by Acsel)
I picked a random quote that says otherwise.



She did not illegally castrate her son. She went to a country and did something that was not illegal at the time. The fact that it's illegal in the UK is competely irrelevant. Her actions, while questionable, were legal. This should be evidence by how you say the law was changed to actually make it illegal.



No, that's not how laws work. Doing something in Thailand that's illegal in the UK does not make her susceptible to UK law. What she did was illegal in the UK, but she was not in the UK. At the time, she did something that was not illegal in the country where she was. Therefore it's not a crime. I don't know what's so difficult to understand about this.

If I moved to a country where drug use was legal, that wouldn't make me a UK criminal. People who go to Amsterdam to take advantage of more relaxed drug laws don't get arrested when they come back in the UK for example. UK law applies in the UK only (with some exceptions that are totally irrelevant here).

You don't have to agree with what she did, but this is not really up for debate. Continuously claiming that she broke the law, despite it not being illegal at the time in the place she went, is simply incorrect.
You are right, it is not up for debate that she did something that is illegal in the UK.

Also, I do wonder why you seem to be picking this issue with so much. There are plenty of factually incorrect statements and yet you are only bothered by me omitting "...illegal (in the UK)". Anyway, stop responding to me, you are nothing but a troll who whines that this debate isn't going anywhere, and yet contributes nothing but spam.
0
Acsel
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#192
Report 1 month ago
#192
(Original post by yudothis)
You are right, it is not up for debate that she did something that is illegal in the UK.
I have never once claimed it's legal in the UK. I'm saying she didn't do anything illegal. Honestly this is like talking to a brick wall.

(Original post by yudothis)
Also, I do wonder why you seem to be picking this issue with so much.
As I said, it's something that happened to catch me eye.


(Original post by yudothis)
There are plenty of factually incorrect statements and yet you are only bothered by me omitting "...illegal (in the UK)".
Ah yes, because I am responsible for every factually incorrect statement on the Internet. Obviously I'm not human, and couldn't possible have just picked something at random that I happened to see.

But see how easy it would have been to just reword what you intended to say? How much time would you have saved yourself by simply saying "I meant that the process is illegal in the UK, she didn't actually break any laws"

(Original post by yudothis)
Anyway, stop responding to me, you are nothing but a troll
So telling you that you're wrong is trolling now? Interesting perspective. You're aware that you can just choose not to reply right? Had you note replied to the first post where I called out your mistake we wouldn't be in this position. Had you not made the same incorrect claim every time I pointed out it was wrong, there would have been nothing to reply to.

(Original post by yudothis)
who whines that this debate isn't going anywhere
It isn't when you make factually incorrect statements and then claim someone who is correcting you is a troll.

(Original post by yudothis)
and yet contributes nothing but spam.
If we are going to talk about spam, I'm pretty sure posting in circles qualifies. As does your need to multipost, trying to overwhelm the other party with too much to reply to (doesn't seem to be going well does it).

Not that I've wasted much time on this thread to begin with, but I don't intend to continue this any further. As I said, brick wall. Both myself and Dez have told you numerous times that she didn't break any laws, and your reply is consistently "But herp derp it's illegal". I've clearly demonstrated otherwise, so there's not much more to say. But maybe something else that's silly will come up (in fact I fully expect it in this thread) and I'll chime in on that as well.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (164)
18.57%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (88)
9.97%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (146)
16.53%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (127)
14.38%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (85)
9.63%
How can I be the best version of myself? (273)
30.92%

Watched Threads

View All