Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes. We have the combined experience of places like Norway, Ireland, Malta, Argentina that show this.
You always use this point to shut down the debate, but I'm not sure it's as clear cut as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Does anyone have any issues with the content of the letter itself?

There seems to be a lot of outrage about it - but what are the bits you don't like?
 

I just read through it and didn't note anything that I'd disagree with.  Seems pretty sane and sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pandarilla said:

You always use this point to shut down the debate, but I'm not sure it's as clear cut as that.
 

 

I always use it because it's all that needs to be said. The anticipated horde of rapists in dresses didn't materialise. We can relax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't often take this approach, but show me.
I'm not going to go trawling for this but Neil Oliver was dropped by an organisation for slowing his support for David starkey, who himself was fired by his university.

The labour candidate for leadership was sacked for sharing an article, and the actress who wrote it might struggle in her future career as a result of the controversy.

I don't necessarily agree with the examples of those I've given, I'm just suggesting that the consequences can be serious, and the atmosphere it creates for certain topics is pretty toxic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
I always use it because it's all that needs to be said. The anticipated horde of rapists in dresses didn't materialise. We can relax.
But it's only one statistic relating to one example of the problem people have with it. There are a lot of strong opinions who have misgivings about this change, and it's not all about "the rapists will come in and attack us". You're oversimplifying the issue, and trying to shut it down with one piece of evidence. It's an important piece of evidence, but it's not the be all and end all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
I always use it because it's all that needs to be said. The anticipated horde of rapists in dresses didn't materialise. We can relax.

I never mentioned men in dresses. I’m talking about determined sexual offenders and predators. The type who we have finally realised will train for years as teachers or priests or work for charities in disaster zones with the sole intention of sexually exploiting others. Or perverts that put hidden cameras in changing rooms and toilets. The idea that these types of men wouldn’t seize on any opportunity to make offending more readily accessible by simply saying they are a ‘woman’. If that places women in fear then I believe it needs a rethink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pandarilla said:

I'm not going to go trawling for this but Neil Oliver was dropped by an organisation for slowing his support for David starkey, who himself was fired by his university.

The labour candidate for leadership was sacked for sharing an article, and the actress who wrote it might struggle in her future career as a result of the controversy.

I don't necessarily agree with the examples of those I've given, I'm just suggesting that the consequences can be serious, and the atmosphere it creates for certain topics is pretty toxic.

David Starkey's been openly racist since 2011. You could very charitably say he'd forgotten this and was hard done by for sending a tweet before the interview that killed Starkey was broadcast. You can't say the same about him liking a tweet of a row of school girls in a sports team where one is refusing to take a knee and is being described as the original tweeter's 'hero'.

Rebecca Long Bailey was a top-down victim of Starmer's declared zero tolerance to antisemitism (laughably exposed for the hokum it was when one of his side did it and didn't get sacked).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Broomhill Ultra said:

Are we seriously suggesting there are no potential issues with men using female spaces in society?

I've been on lots of Uni tours over the past five years with my kids. Apart from Durham, the main UCL building and one Oxford college we visited all of the public loos had been remodeled or built to be gender-neutral and had been done tastefully.  This is also happening in newer bars and pubs.  Mind you, Soul in Aberdeen had separate areas for men and women to pee/shite but a common wash-room area a decade ago.

Where Aberdeen leads the rest of the UK will follow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pandarilla said:
10 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:
 
I always use it because it's all that needs to be said. The anticipated horde of rapists in dresses didn't materialise. We can relax.

But it's only one statistic relating to one example of the problem people have with it. There are a lot of strong opinions who have misgivings about this change, and it's not all about "the rapists will come in and attack us". You're oversimplifying the issue, and trying to shut it down with one piece of evidence. It's an important piece of evidence, but it's not the be all and end all.

It's relevant to all problems people have with it.

2 minutes ago, Broomhill Ultra said:


I never mentioned men in dresses. I’m talking about determined sexual offenders and predators. The type who we have finally realised will train for years as teachers or priests or work for charities in disaster zones with the sole intention of sexually exploiting others. Or perverts that put hidden cameras in changing rooms and toilets. The idea that these types of men wouldn’t seize on any opportunity to make offending more readily accessible by simply saying they are a ‘woman’. If that places women in fear then I believe it needs a rethink.

Do you think a bigger or smaller number of men will sexually assault women inside female spaces compared to outside female spaces? If we must keep women safe from even the perception of this so no trans people can go into the ladies toilets this must surely also mean that no men can go into city centre pubs, parks, public transport, multistory car parks or wherever else terrible crimes of this sort can be committed. Or is that silly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David Starkey's been openly racist since 2011. You could very charitably say he'd forgotten this and was hard done by for sending a tweet before the interview that killed Starkey was broadcast. You can't say the same about him liking a tweet of a row of school girls in a sports team where one is refusing to take a knee and is being described as the original tweeter's 'hero'.
Rebecca Long Bailey was a top-down victim of Starmer's declared zero tolerance to antisemitism (laughably exposed for the hokum it was when one of his side did it and didn't get sacked).
I'm horribly misquoting something here but...

I'm not defending what these people said or did - but I'll defend to the death their right to say it.

I don't think you have any issue with the content of the letter. Saying it's all ok because they're all rich is pretty weak, and i think you know that. It's the principle of the thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think a bigger or smaller number of men will sexually assault women inside female spaces compared to outside female spaces? If we must keep women safe from even the perception of this so no trans people can go into the ladies toilets this must surely also mean that no men can go into city centre pubs, parks, public transport, multistory car parks or wherever else terrible crimes of this sort can be committed. Or is that silly?

If a big hairy man with a history of sexual offending can legally call himself a woman and then go into a female changing room at a gym or swimming pool will this make women and young children feel more or less safe in that space?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Does anyone have any issues with the content of the letter itself?

i'm not entirely comfortable with the inference in the last paragraph that the signatories seem to view themselves as the appointed spokespeople for some sort of nebulous, disenfranchised group who have no means to articulate their thoughts and ideas unless said signatories are given the unfettered freedom to do it on their behalf with impunity; I think they'll find that throughout human history voices which have something worthwhile to say have found a way to make themselves heard without the need for advocates, inspired by their own self-interested motives to monetise the propagation of those ideas - even if they are just putting things 'out there' for debate rather than being proponents of one perspective or another; properly public debate is an organic, self-sustaining process - not a commodity to be managed and exploited by some sort of enlightened literati

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose for a second that your house was ransacked by thugs, your family was tied up in the basement with socks in their mouths, you try to open the door but there's too much blood on the knob...

Edited by Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I'm horribly misquoting something here but...

I'm not defending what these people said or did - but I'll defend to the death their right to say it.

 

It was Voltaire who said that .

He also said judge not someone on the answers they give but the questions they ask 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

Suppose for a second that your house was ransacked by thugs, your family was tied up in the basement with socks in their mouths, you try to open the door but there's to much blood on the knob...

Hostage ft. Fritzel & Bobbitt ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a big hairy man with a history of sexual offending can legally call himself a woman and then go into a female changing room at a gym or swimming pool will this make women and young children feel more or less safe in that space?
Oh ffs let's not go down this route on this thread too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I've been on lots of Uni tours over the past five years with my kids. Apart from Durham, the main UCL building and one Oxford college we visited all of the public loos had been remodeled or built to be gender-neutral and had been done tastefully.  This is also happening in newer bars and pubs.  Mind you, Soul in Aberdeen had separate areas for men and women to pee/shite but a common wash-room area a decade ago.

Where Aberdeen leads the rest of the UK will follow...

 

cartoon-illustration-lamb-looking-scared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

There are clearly career consequences, as all sorts of contracts are cancelled. Internet pile-on's are not pretty, and reputations can be set on fire in a matter of days.

The atmosphere that this creates is not a good one for future debate, and it ranges from the trans debate to the anti - semitism one. Smart people have to be encouraged to debate openly about these important matters.

Noamh chomsky and the speechwriter for George Bush senior are united in agreement ffs. That's mental.
 

 

Noam Chomsky replies to literally anyone who emails him, I wouldn't take his signature on this to mean much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people often confuse free speech and inciting (racial, religious, etc) hatred similarly slander or libel. But the flip side to this is that there are laws against the latter and a Court system in place to prosecute those guilty of these crimes therefore cancel culture often seems like an attack on different opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sjc said:

I think people often confuse free speech and inciting (racial, religious, etc) hatred similarly slander or libel. But the flip side to this is that there are laws against the latter and a Court system in place to prosecute those guilty of these crimes therefore cancel culture often seems like an attack on different opinions.

This sounds like the start of a Law and Order episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...