Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:56 pm When you have to cut out all the salient points from my post to make your arguments stick, you're cheating!
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:06 pm Errr...
Then I'm forced to respond thusly!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:28 pm Then I'm forced to respond thusly!
Works for me. I wasn't looking for a response. I was just telling you what's true.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

Trans rights: Starmer says MP was wrong to say ‘only women have a cervix’
Sam Blewett

Sir Keir Starmer has criticised a Labour MP’s remarks about trans women and called for laws to go further to protect trans rights. The Labour leader said Rosie Duffield who is not attending the party conference in Brighton after receiving threats and being branded transphobic, was wrong to say “only women have a cervix”.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/t ... d=msedgntp


There's the party my grandfather's built! That's what working people care about! They are a government in waiting!
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

Too many white men putting their hands up to speak, Labour delegates told
Richard Wheeler 16 hrs ago

White men have been urged not to “dominate” speaking slots at Labour Party conference. During a debate on housing and transport, the chairman of the session noted the people putting their hands up to contribute did “not reflect the diversity” of those in the hall.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/t ... d=msedgntp

Shut up - you're a white male! Reverse racist sexist bullshit.
You can count on my vote - going to anyone but Labour!
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by mickthinks »

White men have been urged not to “dominate” speaking slots at Labour Party conference.

That appears to be a lie, and you are too gullible to apply your critical faculties to spot it. No surprise there then.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

mickthinks wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:33 am White men have been urged not to “dominate” speaking slots at Labour Party conference.

That appears to be a lie, and you are too gullible to apply your critical faculties to spot it. No surprise there then.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/t ... d=msedgntp


I've just re-read the article, and nothing leaps out at me as a lie. It's not atypical, that Labour - so in hock to political correctness would rather hear a black one legged lesbian with nothing to say, than a white man with some good ideas. For me, I believe one should not discriminate on the basis of arbitrary characteristics, ever! Sex and skin colour - are not factors that effect the quality of the ideas expressed. But here, we have a story where Labour do discriminate on the basis of sex and race. I don't know why you say it's a lie, but if it didn't happen - it's nonetheless believable because that's what they do, and white men are at the bottom of their inverted identity politics pyramid. What if it were all black women who'd spoken? Would they say, I've heard enough from black women? No! They would never ever do that!
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by mickthinks »

Sex and skin colour - are not factors that effect the quality of the ideas expressed.

Sometimes they are, when the issues are ones that women and minorities experience and deal with every day, and white men don't. Not all issues are like that, but some are.

If an issues has a differing impact on different sections of society, then it is important that views from those different groups are raised and heard.

C'mon Vitruvius babe—this isn't rocket science!
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by mickthinks »

... white men are at the bottom of their inverted identity politics pyramid

Ah, that's an interesting slip of the keyboard! In what sense do you feel that a pyramid which has white men at the bottom* is "inverted"? Try to answer without revealing your belief in white and male superiority.


* and of course there is nothing in the article to suggest that white men are at the bottom of the Labour Party
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

mickthinks wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:41 pm ... white men are at the bottom of their inverted identity politics pyramid

Ah, that's an interesting slip of the keyboard! In what sense do you feel that a pyramid which has white men at the bottom* is "inverted"? Try to answer without revealing your belief in white and male superiority.


* and of course there is nothing in the article to suggest that white men are at the bottom of the Labour Party

Do you think I don't accept racism and sexism exist? They certainly do. But you don't tackle them by reversing discrimination. You tackle it by recognising that arbitrary characteristics are arbitrary - and treating people as individuals, on merit.

You haven't told me why you think it's a lie.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by mickthinks »

Mick: In what sense do you feel that a pyramid which has white men at the bottom* is "inverted"?
Vit: Do you think I don't accept racism and sexism exist?

Ooooh—talk about a non sequitur! lol

Vit: You haven't told me why you think it's a lie.
I don't think it's important right now. If you want a clue, try identifying at what point, according to the article, white men were urged and by whom?
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by mickthinks »

But you don't tackle them by reversing discrimination. You tackle it by recognising that arbitrary characteristics are arbitrary ...
What happens if, while recognising that arbitrary characteristics are arbitrary, you notice that some of your friends, neighbours and colleagues have already suffered some unfair discrimination based on arbitrary characteristics and are arbitrarily disadvantaged compared to others?

... and treating people as individuals, on merit.
There's no suggestion that anyone at the conference isn't being treated as an individual, or on merits. In other words, you've made that up.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

mickthinks wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:13 pm Mick: In what sense do you feel that a pyramid which has white men at the bottom* is "inverted"?
Vit: Do you think I don't accept racism and sexism exist?

Ooooh—talk about a non sequitur! lol

Vit: You haven't told me why you think it's a lie.
I don't think it's important right now. If you want a clue, try identifying at what point, according to the article, white men were urged and by whom?
First, there's a quote button in the top right. Use it and I get a notification of your post. I imagine in your head, almost everything occurs as a non sequitur. Personally, I don't see any contradiction between recognising racism and sexism exist, and upholding the value that people ought to be treated as individuals regardless of arbitrary characteristics. What you are saying is because racism and sexism exist, you can be racist and sexist too. I'm sure you were told a million times as a child 'two wrongs don't make a right.'
mickthinks wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:48 pm But you don't tackle them by reversing discrimination. You tackle it by recognising that arbitrary characteristics are arbitrary ...

What happens if, while recognising that arbitrary characteristics are arbitrary, you notice that some of your friends, neighbours and colleagues have already suffered some unfair discrimination based on arbitrary characteristics and are arbitrarily disadvantaged compared to others?

... and treating people as individuals, on merit.
There's no suggestion that anyone at the conference isn't being treated as an individual, or on merits. In other words, you've made that up.
So you agree, no-one was discriminated against at conference? Given how painfully PC Labour are, I'd be very surprised if that were the case. I imagine, if a black person puts their hand up, you make sure they get to speak. Push them right to the front of the queue to signal your own virtue. So they didn't want to speak, but that's not good enough for you. Diversity at all costs. Fancy being singled out on the basis of skin colour, forced into the spotlight of a debate when you've nothing to say. How embarrassing.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by mickthinks »

What you are saying is because racism and sexism exist, you can be racist and sexist too.
No, I am saying that "I accept that racism and sexism exist" does not address the question; In what sense do you feel that a pyramid which has white men at the bottom is "inverted"? That was your choice of words; care to explain it?

Fancy being singled out on the basis of skin colour, forced into the spotlight of a debate when you've nothing to say
Yeah, that didn't happen. You made it up. You keep doing that.

It's not a good look, Vitro. :-(
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Sculptor »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:13 pm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58598186
I fully support this decision of the court and reject the rather hysterical and shrill spin that you put on it, which utterly mis represents the article.

It shows that smarter heads prevail in the UK than in the US on this matter.
I can' think of anything more important that allowing the RECIPIENT of the treatment to have a say in what is going on.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Gary Childress »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:10 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:13 pm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58598186
I fully support this decision of the court and reject the rather hysterical and shrill spin that you put on it, which utterly mis represents the article.

It shows that smarter heads prevail in the UK than in the US on this matter.
I can' think of anything more important that allowing the RECIPIENT of the treatment to have a say in what is going on.
I have a question. If the person who is receiving the treatment wants to revert back to their original gender in the future, can they do so without detrimental effects?
Post Reply