Toilet Signage

[noah]

Thats just stupid. thats like saying a man who had to have his testicles removed from cancer or his prostate taken out is no longer a man and should be addressed as a woman.

The worlds gone mad!

 

[Matlock]

Non-binary?

I wouldn't like to be the one suggesting to a woman who has just had a hysterectomy that they are no longer a woman, tbh!

 

[Hank Scorpio]

So once a woman has had a hysterectomy they are no longer a woman?

Unless shes altered the makeup of her chromosomes then she remains a woman.

Through 'the narrow prism of biology'.

You fu*king idiot.

 

[Matlock]

Unless shes altered the makeup of her chromosomes then she remains a woman.

Through 'the narrow prism of biology'.

You fu*king idiot.

Take it up with Fermoylad. He is the one who defined a woman as someone with a uterus and ovaries.

 

[RebelBOK]

Yet, according to Fermoy lad she's not a woman.

That's a slightly disingenuous interpretation of his post Matlock.

The fact is there is a clearly defined biological definition of a woman (and indeed a man but we are taking about women here so...).

Female​

Female
1. An individual of the sex which conceives and brings forth young, or (in a wider sense) which has an ovary and produces ova.

Female

Female 1. An individual of the sex which conceives and brings forth young, or (in a wider sense) which has an ovary and produces ova. The male and female of each living thing. (Drayton) 2.

www.biologyonline.com

Now given that all women are born with the organs that @Fermoylad listed (barring any abnormalities or unfortunate defects) then it is reasonable to assert that anyone without these organs is therefore not a woman.

Also he isn't suggesting that the removal of these organs removes said womanhood (as @SoundMan rightly points out loosing organs specific to one sex doesn't automatically assign one to the opposite sex, the opposite is also true however in that acquiring organs specific to the opposite sex to your own doesn't automatically make you that sex), @Fermoylad was merely pointing out (and correct me if I am wrong @Fermoylad ) the biological makeup that differentiates a man from a woman.

The fact remains those differences cannot be simply overlooked or compensated for by wearing a dress and changing your name.

Can I ask you a question Mattie just for clarity, do you believe a trans woman is actually a woman? Despite every shred of biological evidence to the contrary? Or is it a case of just showing courtesy to people? Because if it is the latter then we are absolutely on the same page but if it is the former then we are absolutely not.

 

[Matlock]

That's a slightly disingenuous interpretation of his post Matlock.

The fact is there is a clearly defined biological definition of a woman (and indeed a man but we are taking about women here so...).

Female​

Female
1. An individual of the sex which conceives and brings forth young, or (in a wider sense) which has an ovary and produces ova.

Female

Female 1. An individual of the sex which conceives and brings forth young, or (in a wider sense) which has an ovary and produces ova. The male and female of each living thing. (Drayton) 2.

www.biologyonline.com

Now given that all women are born with the organs that @Fermoylad listed (barring any abnormalities or unfortunate defects) then it is reasonable to assert that anyone without these organs is therefore not a woman.

Also he isn't suggesting that the removal of these organs removes said womanhood (as @SoundMan rightly points out loosing organs specific to one sex doesn't automatically assign one to the opposite sex, the opposite is also true however in that acquiring organs specific to the opposite sex to your own doesn't automatically make you that sex), @Fermoylad was merely pointing out (and correct me if I am wrong @Fermoylad ) the biological makeup that differentiates a man from a woman.

The fact remains those differences cannot be simply overlooked or compensated for by wearing a dress and changing your name.

Can I ask you a question Mattie just for clarity, do you believe a trans woman is actually a woman? Despite every shred of biological evidence to the contrary? Or is it a case of just showing courtesy to people? Because if it is the latter then we are absolutely on the same page but if it is the former then we are absolutely not.

It wasn't my intention to be disingenuous. It was my intention to point out that simplistic statements like "unless you have a uterus you are not a woman" are silly.

On your question, probably the latter. I think there is a difference between biological gender and the social idea of gender. I think you can't alter the former but you can alter the latter. There are issues that need to be looked at around trans people and access to certain spaces (such as prisons and competing in sports) but these are not major issues to be overcome and the hysteria that surrounds them is ridiculous.

I find the vilification of trans people abhorrent. It does remind me of the views on homosexuals a generation ago (they are weird, they are perverts, they will abuse your children etc).

What harm comes of allowing people to choose their gender? (leaving aside prisons and sports as mentioned above). Why does it matter if you don't think they are really a woman, as long as they do?

(These are not specifically questions for you)

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Matlock incessantly comparing valid challenging of gender identity theory to homophobia. A lazy and inaccurate argument.

 

[Matlock]

Matlock incessantly comparing valid challenging of gender identity theory to homophobia. A lazy and inaccurate argument.

Given that precisely the same arguments are being used, it is neither lazy nor inaccurate.

(People making these arguments against LGBTQ folks thought their concerns were valid too)

 

[noah]

next there'll be urinal in the womens toilets now by law. for the trannies.

 

[Matlock]

next there'll be urinal in the womens toilets now by law. for the trannies.

This may come as a shock to you Noah, but people with penises can piss into toilets...