• The Sietch will be brought offline for HPG systems maintenance tomorrow (Thursday, 2 May 2024). Please remain calm and do not start any interstellar wars while ComStar is busy. May the Peace of Blake be with you. Precentor Dune

Transgender Rights

DarthOne

☦️
All likely true, they haven't exactly listened to rational arguments on the topic in the last 10 years so I suppose its unlikely the documentary will change any hardcore trans ideologs minds, but I still think that it will convince any fence sitters should they actually watch it.
Exactly so. Most people fall into the ‘I just want to grill, bro’ mindset. The people actually pushing the Trans nonsense are outnumbered many times over. Plus, if shown to young people who are just being indoctrinated, it might be enough to wake them up.

Libs of Tik Tok MEGA DRAG THREAD. So good it just got banned in Germany and huge influx of hate mail. It hit a nerve ...




5FCzAyDr9HJ2.png




Libs of TikTok
@libsoftiktok

Replying to @libsoftiktok
“Are you under the age of 18?” @KenoshaPride is looking specifically for minors to dress up in drag and perform on stage with drag queens.



3:06 AM · Jun 3, 2022
 

Urabrask Revealed

Let them go.
Founder
It's this kind of shit that turned me off from all that garbage about "diversity" and "live and let live".
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if in the next five years, angry people, young and old, start dragging these "people" up tall buildings.
 
It's this kind of shit that turned me off from all that garbage about "diversity" and "live and let live".
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if in the next five years, angry people, young and old, start dragging these "people" up tall buildings.

my issue with that believe it or not is the following: if it's ok to do that with one group how long will it be before it becomes ok to do that to another and another until things just devolve back into tribal warfare like it was back in ye olden days. You know my ancestors gave up the old gods and our barbaric heritage with the promise of peace and prosperity. Now we are being shown over and over again that peace is a scam designed to keep the leaches and the parasites safe in their ivory towers while the rest of us uncivilized peons have to bare the brunt of economic hardship and tribal warfare now with the added benefit of being left at the mercy of an untouchable caste that can destroy us the moment they decide they don't like us and the media will cover for them. (How many disappearances has Biden and hunter personally been responsible for)

At least when we were looting churches and government buildings, we weren't pretending that life was sacred or that the world was good. No in this case I'm going to say all or nothing. Either civilization works or it doesn't. If we can't evolve past tribes, then let's destroy the big empires and go back to the old ways. At least then the parasites in suits don't have an extra advantages.
 

DarthOne

☦️
BBC Altered Rape Victim’s Quote to Prevent ‘Misgendering’ Her Transgender Attacker: Report


The BBC altered quotes from a female rape victim in its reporting so as to avoid misgendering her transgender attacker, a report claims.

The Times of London reported the BBC previously quoted a woman who said she was raped. Her quotes were part of a report last year about lesbians who had been “coerced into sex with transgender women.”

On Oct. 26 last year, the BBC published a story about a lesbian campaign called “Get the L Out.” The campaign had asked gay women to describe their sexual and romantic experiences with transgender women.

Three women ultimately spoke to the BBC for the story, which was originally headlined “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women.”

One woman who spoke to the outlet explained she had been raped during an encounter.

The Times, citing “insiders” at the BBC, reported:

The woman referred to her alleged rapist as “him” but insiders said that her words were changed to avoid “misgendering” the abuser in an article on the corporation’s website.
The BBC article replaced every reference to “he” or “him” with “they” or “them”. A source said the quote was the subject of heated debate prior to publication. Some journalists argued that the quote should remain intact, while others said it should reflect the trans woman’s preferred she/her pronouns.
The woman reportedly told the BBC: “I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so he was a ‘woman’ even if every fiber of my being was screaming throughout, so I agreed to go home with him. He used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing his penis and raped me.”

The woman’s quote in the BBC report reads:

“[They] threatened to out me as a terf and risk my job if I refused to sleep with [them],” she wrote. “I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so [they were] a ‘woman’ even if every fiber of my being was screaming throughout so I agreed to go home with [them]. [They] used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing [their] penis and raped me.”
One of the Times‘ sources blamed “woke” ideology on the decision to remove male pronouns from the quotes.

“They were originally all-male references but the woke bros at the news website wanted to make them female because of misgendering,” the person said. “It’s quite shocking. I can’t think of any other situation where we would change the words of an alleged rape victim.”

The BBC’s diversity team is blamed for having too much influence over the outlet’s style guide and news division.

Get The L Out co-founder Angela Wild accused the BBC of “gaslighting” a rape victim.

“It’s really unethical and disrespectful to the victim,” Wild said. “It’s a form of gaslighting for a woman who has already been through sexual violence.”

The BBC said, “It’s routine to have editorial discussions about different stories. Our only intention when deciding on language is to make things as clear as possible for audiences.”


On a related note, I have never seen a rational explanation for why, exactly, transgender people's feelings are so much more important than anyone else's that we must show all this deference to them at all costs. It's a fake word, too. Human beings have no biological or physical capacity to 'transition'. The whole thing is make-believe, including the word 'transgender'. They're deluded abominations.
 

Ixian

Well-known member
BBC Altered Rape Victim’s Quote to Prevent ‘Misgendering’ Her Transgender Attacker: Report





On a related note, I have never seen a rational explanation for why, exactly, transgender people's feelings are so much more important than anyone else's that we must show all this deference to them at all costs. It's a fake word, too. Human beings have no biological or physical capacity to 'transition'. The whole thing is make-believe, including the word 'transgender'. They're deluded abominations.

Thats an easy lawsuit isn't it? Its one thing to play word salad like they normally do with headlines or context, but editing a direct quote seems like it would be fairly easy to force a retraction and correction.

Oh, the BBC, I don't know anything about those wacky British courts. It could be completely fine to change a direct quote there for all I know.
 

DarthOne

☦️
Norwegian Feminist Faces Three Years in Prison For Saying Biological Men Can’t Be Lesbians



A Norwegian feminist faces up to three years in prison for saying that biological men can’t be lesbians.

Yes, really.

Christina Ellingsen, of the global feminist organization Women’s Declaration International (WDI), is under police investigation for making the claim in a tweet in which she criticized the trans activism group FRI.

“Why [does] FRI teach young people that males can be lesbians? Isn’t that conversion therapy?” Ellingsen allegedly tweeted.

She also questioned the legitimacy of FRI’s advisor Christine Jentoft identifying as a lesbian despite being born a biological male.

“Jentoft, who is male and an advisor in FRI, presents himself as a lesbian – that’s how bonkers the organization which supposedly works to protect young lesbians’ interests is. How does it help young lesbians when males claim to be lesbian, too?” Ellingsen reportedly said.

“You are a man. You cannot be a mother,” Ellingsen allegedly told Jentoft. “To normalize the idea that men can be mothers is a defined form of discrimination against women.”

“Amnesty International is also accusing Ellingsen of harassment for saying that Jentoft is a man on national television,” reports Reclaim the Net.

Norway’s hate crime laws were made more draconian last year to make criticizing gender ideology a crime and Ellingsen faces up to three years in prison if she is convicted.

“To certain groups, the fact that women and girls are female and that men cannot be women, girls, mothers or lesbians, is considered hateful,” Ellingsen told Reduxx, adding that the police are investigating her for “for campaigning for women’s rights.”

“The fact that police are legally able to investigate and persecute women who engage in women’s rights is concerning,” said Ellingsen

“This is new territory in Norway, so the outcome of the investigation is important, both if the case is dismissed and if it leads to trial,” she added.

However, the precedent has already been set by a 2021 case where a Norwegian man was jailed for three weeks and fined for “misgendering” someone who identifies as transgender on Facebook.

While Americans merely face social media bans for saying men can’t be women, in some European countries, making the claim risks actual imprisonment.

Similar threats are also made against those who criticize the LGBT movement.

Former Finnish minister Päivi Räsänen faced hate speech charges for citing Bible verses which described homosexuality as “shameful” and “unnatural,” although she was later acquitted.

As we highlighted last year, a Christian pastor in the UK was arrested by police on the streets of London after a member of the public reported him for the “homophobic” comment of saying that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Last year, officers in Merseyside took part in an electronic ad campaign outside a supermarket which claimed “being offensive is an offence.”

In 2019, UK police investigated the potential “hate crime” of a transgender woman being turned down for a porn role because she still has a penis.

A video published by the UK government Home Office in 2020 also suggested that insulting someone’s appearance now constitutes a “hate crime,” despite this not being the law.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
[qoute]Last year, officers in Merseyside took part in an electronic ad campaign outside a supermarket which claimed “being offensive is an offence.”

Wait, wot? Does this mean that my youngest wearing her "This nip is my dad" with an arrow t-shirt is a felony in the UK?

She's also got an equivalent one for my wife (her mother) which reads "nigger" and one for her boyfriend/fiance which reads "cracker".

She's a teenager trying to get a rise out of you.
 
Last edited:

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
To follow up on this.


I need someone else to watch this and tell me if this is my bias speaking, but I think this documentary absolutely destroys every argument made by the left on the transgender issue, I think this is so devastating to their arguments that it will absolutely have an impact on the wider discussion.

Or maybe I'm suffering terrible confirmation bias.
Paywalled, or I would. The issue I *think* it has, from watching previews (again, I could be wrong here) is that it doesn't address the proper argument for trans rights (which is that they are adult individuals, and free to do with their body as they choose).

But that's not really an issue, as the left never will make that argument, because it doesn't get them what they want.

Also, the definition of 'Adult human female' hides a lot of work in the term 'female', IMO, with all the people who are to some degree intersex but clearly look female.

Personally, off the top of my head, I'd go with "Adult human who is consistently perceived as a woman, or who makes an honest and committed attempt to be consistently perceived such a way." Yes, self referential, so it needs some work, but still decent.

Overall, it could be culturally significant, but it is hampered by the paywall.
 

DarthOne

☦️
Paywalled, or I would. The issue I *think* it has, from watching previews (again, I could be wrong here) is that it doesn't address the proper argument for trans rights (which is that they are adult individuals, and free to do with their body as they choose).

But that's not really an issue, as the left never will make that argument, because it doesn't get them what they want.

Also, the definition of 'Adult human female' hides a lot of work in the term 'female', IMO, with all the people who are to some degree intersex but clearly look female.

Personally, off the top of my head, I'd go with "Adult human who is consistently perceived as a woman, or who makes an honest and committed attempt to be consistently perceived such a way." Yes, self referential, so it needs some work, but still decent.

Overall, it could be culturally significant, but it is hampered by the paywall.

I'd disagree. Transgenderism is a mental illness. One that should be treated and viewed by society like other mental illnesses. To wit, if someone with a body image problem comes to doctors and tells them that they want a perfectly functional body part cut off, are their requests granted? Of course not.

Also, intersex individuals are the result of genetic or environmental factors. And thus aren't qualified by definition to be male or female.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
I'd disagree. Transgenderism is a mental illness. One that should be treated and viewed by society like other mental illnesses. To wit, if someone with a body image problem comes to doctors and tells them that they want a perfectly functional body part cut off, are their requests granted? Of course not.
First, they absolutely should be. It's your absolute right to do stupid shit to yourself. You own you, I own me. The government should have absolutely no say in this.

Second, sometimes the best treatment to a mental illness is the surgery. For some people, that's the ending that puts them in the best space. For the much less controversial, but very similar, body dysphoria, surgery is sometimes done, sometimes not.

Also, intersex individuals are the result of genetic or environmental factors. And thus aren't qualified by definition to be male or female.
Then by that definition, they are not women or men. Despite, for example, people with Androgen Insensivity Syndrome basically being women and raised as girls from birth up until they try to have kids and go to a doctor and ask why they can't.

See, I think that's clearly a woman.
 

King Arts

Well-known member

DarthOne

☦️
First, they absolutely should be. It's your absolute right to do stupid shit to yourself. You own you, I own me. The government should have absolutely no say in this.
Probably because the people who made those laws couldn't have imagined this level of disturbing bullshit. And probably about 50 other reasons as well that I just don't know enough about to argue.

Second, sometimes the best treatment to a mental illness is the surgery. For some people, that's the ending that puts them in the best space. For the much less controversial, but very similar, body dysphoria, surgery is sometimes done, sometimes not.
I'd love to see sources on this. As well as to know exactly when this practice was adopted, as it could very well be the result of Trans acceptance. And could be just as 'effective'.

Then by that definition, they are not women or men. Despite, for example, people with Androgen Insensivity Syndrome basically being women and raised as girls from birth up until they try to have kids and go to a doctor and ask why they can't.

See, I think that's clearly a woman.

Another example of biological malfunction. Furthermore, genetically and biologically, they are still male and just physically look female. Or at least that's my understanding of the wikipedia page.
 

Ixian

Well-known member
Paywalled, or I would. The issue I *think* it has, from watching previews (again, I could be wrong here) is that it doesn't address the proper argument for trans rights (which is that they are adult individuals, and free to do with their body as they choose).

But that's not really an issue, as the left never will make that argument, because it doesn't get them what they want.

Also, the definition of 'Adult human female' hides a lot of work in the term 'female', IMO, with all the people who are to some degree intersex but clearly look female.

Personally, off the top of my head, I'd go with "Adult human who is consistently perceived as a woman, or who makes an honest and committed attempt to be consistently perceived such a way." Yes, self referential, so it needs some work, but still decent.

Overall, it could be culturally significant, but it is hampered by the paywall.

It mainly focuses on the insanity of child transitioning, which is chilling and far more widespread than I had really understood. Though it also lightly goes over the sheer mountain of health complications gender reassignment can cause for adults and explains the profit motive for the medical, pharma, and psychiatric industries to sell gender reassignment.

Intersex individuals are suffering from a genetic disorder, in other words, a mutation. Their existence doesn't actually invalidate the definition of Female, which is a word firmly rooted in biology, the exception doesn't disprove the rule such as it were.

It's not decent, it needs lots of work. It's actually a terrible definition because it isn't one. Try defining the word without using the word in the sentence.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Intersex individuals are suffering from a genetic disorder, in other words, a mutation. Their existence doesn't actually invalidate the definition of Female, which is a word firmly rooted in biology, the exception doesn't disprove the rule such as it were.

Not so fast. Only a subset of intersex conditions are genetic; there's a substantial number that are hormonal, and even some that are exogenously hormonal. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that transsexual individuals *are* intersex, just with primary manifestations at the neural level rather than genitalia.

When you look at the actual science and medicine, the bright-line distinction you're advocating here simply does not exist.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Probably because the people who made those laws couldn't have imagined this level of disturbing bullshit. And probably about 50 other reasons as well that I just don't know enough about to argue.
No. This has nothing to do with laws. This is a fundamental right. Who owns you? Should the government be able to control what you do to yourself? I say no. Why do you say yes?

Seriously, if you let the government control what you do to your body, they can control everything else too. How can you be for a ban on this, and against a mandatory vaccine? It's the same issue: people want to adopt different levels and types of risk. They have the right to do so.

I'd love to see sources on this. As well as to know exactly when this practice was adopted, as it could very well be the result of Trans acceptance. And could be just as 'effective'.
Trans rights activists hate the comparison with BDD, calling it transmedicalism. So no, the comparison is just carefully avoided. But it's very similar to gender dysphoria. You start to fundamentally hate part of your body. There are solutions to this: getting over it for mild things, sometimes medication, or occasionally a surgery with therapy.

Note that the two are distinct: BDD is frequently imagined problems with no end goal, just knowledge that the current state is 'wrong'. GDD has a clear end goal. Also many BDD problems are imagined, like anorexics imagine that they are fat while dying of starvation. In contrast, GDD patients know exactly what they look like, and don't like it.

From a quick read through, usually surgery is rarely helpful, which no duh, it's almost never done with approval by the psychiatrist/therapist, but by someone just sure that the surgery is the solution. The studies I found tended to focus on people just getting the surgery without talking to a therapist/psychiatrist, and found a 2-10% effectiveness rate.

In contrast, I know people who did have gender surgery who are happier now, which is interesting.

Another example of biological malfunction. Furthermore, genetically and biologically, they are still male and just physically look female. Or at least that's my understanding of the wikipedia page.
Not just look female, they basically are female in everything but having internal testes where ovaries should be and at a genetic level. So they aren't really male or female. They are, however, women. They were born, identified as a baby girl by the doctor and parents, raised as a girl, developed all of the secondary and primary sex characteristics of a girl while going through female puberty, and then they may or may not ever find out they aren't technically female. That's a woman.


It mainly focuses on the insanity of child transitioning, which is chilling and far more widespread than I had really understood. Though it also lightly goes over the sheer mountain of health complications gender reassignment can cause for adults and explains the profit motive for the medical, pharma, and psychiatric industries to sell gender reassignment.
Oh, child transitioning is straight up monstrous, no argument from me there. As for the complaining about profit motive, eh? I don't really care, that sounds a little like commie talk to me, but again, I haven't seen it, so I won't comment too much there.

And yes, there are some health complications, and they aren't as good as the real thing. That's a choice that an adult can make for themselves, but obviously not a kid.

Intersex individuals are suffering from a genetic disorder, in other words, a mutation. Their existence doesn't actually invalidate the definition of Female, which is a word firmly rooted in biology, the exception doesn't disprove the rule such as it were.

It's not decent, it needs lots of work. It's actually a terrible definition because it isn't one. Try defining the word without using the word in the sentence.
I wasn't saying they were female (or male, for that matter). In fact, they aren't either. I was saying that since the intersex person wasn't female, but everyone would call them a woman, there's an issue with the definition: There are clearly women (those with AIS) who are not adult human females.

And the exception is a pretty glaring one that needs to be fixed with any definition of woman.



As for the second, it's a start and was done off hand, and I acknowledged that problem. So thanks for stating the obvious?

But yeah, I know Sargon of Akkad proposed an Aristotelian approach: there are things associated with being a woman: bearing kids, having XX chromosomes, looking like an average adult human with XX chromosomes, various local gender roles, etc. The more of these you are perceived to do by society, the more 'woman' you are. Personally, not quite a fan, but it captures the edge cases that Adult Human Female glazes over and hides.

Alternatively, I go full bore for the self-referential and have a semi-inductive definition. I define a class of people considered by everyone to be women (Adult humans with XX chromosomes who identify as cis-women), then say that people who are perceived by society (not weird cliques) to fall into that category are also women (this would include passing transwomen and also people with AIS), then add that people who make a true honest attempt to permanently transition (this would include non-passing transwomen who try) are women.

Note that the self reference ends because of the initial class isn't self referential.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top