Finally Some Common Sense

[youngmafbog]

Single-sex schools will be able to reject transgender pupils and teachers can refuse to call children by their preferred pronouns under new Government guidelines

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11983441/Single-sex-schools-able-reject-transgender-pupils-new-Government-guidelines.html

[ClareTG0ld]

Rowling does more than telling the "truth", if she even does that. Put simply, where Rowling tells the truth it's irrelevant, and what she says that's relevant is wrong. But that's a debate for another time, and might require you to engage with the topic for slightly more than two minutes.

[naomi24]

Indeed. Taking the time to find out who I'm listening to/reading revealed that I value the truth - but you know that.

[naomi24]

//might require you to engage with the topic for slightly more than two minutes. //

Oooo ... having been involved in this conversation for several days I can tell you're smarting again. ;o)

Rowling tells the truth - and that you really do not like. Never mind. We all have our crosses to bear - so to speak.

[ClareTG0ld]

You perception of the truth is rather warped, sadly, but you knew that.

[ClareTG0ld]

As is Rowling's. It actually hurts. I'm not sure why it's somehow a point of humour that I'd have an emotional reaction to all this. Firstly, after all, it has an impact on me personally; secondly, I rather enjoyed Harry Potter growing up; and, thirdly, even aside from my personal connection, I care about other transgender people and hope that they can feel accepted, and respected, and not in some sense have to feel either shameful, or in some sense constantly apologetic for their own existence or desire to be an active part of society.

So, yes, at times I might get a little tetchy. So. What? It's not a strength to be emotionally detached all the time, and it's not a strength to mock other people emotionally reacting.

[naomi24]

I've seen no one mocking but I do know that men can never be women and so does J K Rowling. It doesn't suit you but that is the truth. No warping to be had there.

[brainiac]

Clare: can a woman have a penis?

[ClareTG0ld]

The warping comes by consistently conflating sex with gender. Trans people don't the existence of biological sex, although even then it's still important to recognise that even her "truth" is a massive reduction of the complexity of biological sex. But gender identity is not the same thing as biological sex.

[naomi24]

Apparently not. God knows what catgender is supposed to be but that, we are assured, exists too. The bottom line is men who claim to identify as women are not women. They simply aren't.

[naomi24]

ClareTG0ld, brainiac has asked you a question.

[Ellipsis]

Naomi> Ellipsis. Why me? I am not on trial here, so no.

ClareTG0ld is not on trial either, Naomi, and is able to answer brainiac (or not) without your further prompting ...

[Peter Pedant]

ClareTG0ld, brainiac has asked you a question.

um, excuse me but this is Answerbank and not NaomiBank

[Prudie]

"this is Answerbank and not NaomiBank"
haha and yet as there is a pool of people who cannot bear Naomi's intelligence nor modship (partly if not entirely because she is a woman) so they actually make it so!!

[ClareTG0ld]

// God knows what catgender is supposed to be but that, we are assured, exists too. //

By all means feel fee to ask about that, in a separate thread though, as it's a fascinating story. But, in short, you're mistaken about what's going on here.

// brainiac has asked you a question. //

Yes, and I was busy doing other stuff, while also thinking about how, or indeed if, to answer. I work to my clock, though, not yours.

[ClareTG0ld]

Tell me what your definition of "woman" is, brainiac, and I'll tell you what my answer is.

But it's a trap question. I don't think anybody has asked it without knowing for themselves how they'd answer, so there's something inherently dishonest in it. The motivation is entirely about how you can use the answer, or non-answer, in order to attack or judge the person you asked. For example, this rambling response so far allows you to "judge" me as somebody determined to avoid a basic question, etc etc.

Anyway: tell me how you define a woman, as I say, and I'll answer.

[MissTerious2]

True Prudie, and im sick and tired of Naomi bashing by certain people on this site and nothing being done about it.

[Old_Geezer]

To the general public, sex and gender were, and hopfully are still, synonyms. Maybe the psychological/psychiatric professions chose to define the terms differently, but that's professional jargon for you. What someone mistakenly believes they are, despite the physical evidence to the contrary, is no cause to try to define the situation as a separate gender related type. It is simply a miswiring in the brain that creates a mismatch between how someone feels they are and acceptance of who & what they truly are. If they can live with it without expecting everyone else to cater for their illusion, then all fine & good. If not then the problem is not with the public. And the public ought not be criticised for acting correctly and not caving in to unreasonable demands.

[Zacs-Master]

Naomi is quite capable of defending herself. She has a tendency to back herself into metaphorical corners now and again and exacerbates the problem by not having the good grace to just move on.

[MissTerious2]

Great answer Old Geezer. Its what the vast majority of us think.

[MissTerious2]

Naomi is more than capable of defending herself. But this is all getting silly now. And its not just on this thread where people are finding it OK to have a go at her.