ChatterBank1 min ago
More 'transgender' Nonsense?
I hate to break it to you 'Mr' McConnell, but men cannot give birth. They just can't. And no amount of legislation or reassignment surgery will EVER change that basic fact. What has, in fact happened, is a woman masquerading as a man has given birth. Women give birth and men do not, because they cannot.
https:/
Am I alone in thinking this is nuts?
Monty Python were truly prophetic in their sketch!
https:/
Am I alone in thinking this is nuts?
Monty Python were truly prophetic in their sketch!
Answers
The nonsense begins here: //He was able to get pregnant but was legally a man when the child was born.// It was perpetuated when “his” brief said she was disappointed with the original ruling (when Sir Andrew MacFarlane ruled that people who give birth are mothers, regardless of their gender). It was continued when a High Court judge ruled that he had an...
22:26 Fri 25th Oct 2019
The respect that's being called for is in the first place one of basic human decency. It doesn't matter what you think of it. Calling someone a "freak" with the contempt it is obviously meant to convey is a Victorian attitude and should have long since been shot. Then there's the second point that transgender people -- again, whatever you think of the topic -- have the right to live and exist within society without fear of the sort of discrimination and abuse to which they are, directly or indirectly, subject to. And thirdly, as has been pointed out several times already, the "transgender" part refers to a person's gender identity, and in that regard there is no pretence whatsoever. People are who they are.
Belief is a larger step, I will admit, but to some extent at least it is merely that the change from transgenderism being something that was underground (and anyway very difficult) to being very much accepted and public has taken place so quickly that society has barely been able to adapt. But there is nothing new about it, and it is, if anything, a more recent concept to insist on the idea that gender is binary than to accept the existence of multiple possible gender identities.
It's unfortunate that English uses "man" and "woman" to refer both to the biological sexes and, increasingly, to the gender identities. By now, though, there's a huge body of evidence from across the world that gender identity is not and never has been so clear-cut.
As to the court case, I thought the judge in the earlier hearing made a fair point in arguing that the labels on birth certificates are referring to biological parentage, and ergo this person is the child's mother in the context of the certificate. Unless and until the law changes explicitly, to change the point of and information on a birth certificate, I am not sure that Freddy can expect to win their case -- and, even in the event where a judge agreed in principle, it might end up in a similar way to the rather sad case of Owens v Owens, in the context of divorce, when judges ruled that yes, the situation completely sucked for the unfortunate Mrs Owens, but there was nothing they could do within the law as it stood (ditto abortion in Northern Ireland, albeit for more technical reasons).
As a further point, I don't think it's right to say that "no amount of surgery", etc, will change the fact that women (who were born that way and with a functioning uterus) are the only people who will ever give birth. Uterine transplants are difficult but not impossible, and a few babies have been born -- albeit to biological women -- from surgically transplanted wombs. I don't wish to give the impression that I am looking forward to it, but the day may not be far off when transgender women (ie, people born male) are capable of giving birth.
Belief is a larger step, I will admit, but to some extent at least it is merely that the change from transgenderism being something that was underground (and anyway very difficult) to being very much accepted and public has taken place so quickly that society has barely been able to adapt. But there is nothing new about it, and it is, if anything, a more recent concept to insist on the idea that gender is binary than to accept the existence of multiple possible gender identities.
It's unfortunate that English uses "man" and "woman" to refer both to the biological sexes and, increasingly, to the gender identities. By now, though, there's a huge body of evidence from across the world that gender identity is not and never has been so clear-cut.
As to the court case, I thought the judge in the earlier hearing made a fair point in arguing that the labels on birth certificates are referring to biological parentage, and ergo this person is the child's mother in the context of the certificate. Unless and until the law changes explicitly, to change the point of and information on a birth certificate, I am not sure that Freddy can expect to win their case -- and, even in the event where a judge agreed in principle, it might end up in a similar way to the rather sad case of Owens v Owens, in the context of divorce, when judges ruled that yes, the situation completely sucked for the unfortunate Mrs Owens, but there was nothing they could do within the law as it stood (ditto abortion in Northern Ireland, albeit for more technical reasons).
As a further point, I don't think it's right to say that "no amount of surgery", etc, will change the fact that women (who were born that way and with a functioning uterus) are the only people who will ever give birth. Uterine transplants are difficult but not impossible, and a few babies have been born -- albeit to biological women -- from surgically transplanted wombs. I don't wish to give the impression that I am looking forward to it, but the day may not be far off when transgender women (ie, people born male) are capable of giving birth.
Mozz71 gets the prize for the first person to lob in an ‘obia’ (and as per, when an obia is lobbed in, it is done so incorrectly).
I have no phobia of transgenders. If that’s what they want to do, they can fill their boots as far as I’m concerned, but equally I’m allowed to find stories like this to be nuts. That’s not a phobia.
For such a tiny minority the transgenders are incredibly loud.
I have no phobia of transgenders. If that’s what they want to do, they can fill their boots as far as I’m concerned, but equally I’m allowed to find stories like this to be nuts. That’s not a phobia.
For such a tiny minority the transgenders are incredibly loud.
//It's unfortunate that English uses "man" and "woman" to refer both to the biological sexes//
Bizarre. I can’t think of another language that doesn’t use specific words to differentiate between men and women.
//Uterine transplants are difficult but not impossible//
That doesn’t make a man a woman either, just as a man dressing up as a woman and insisting on being referred to as ‘she’ doesn’t make him a woman. I feel very sorry for people who have problems but the demand that the rest of the world support them in their fantasies – in effect lie - is unreasonable. Whatever the person in question wants to be, they are the child’s mother. Wanting it to be otherwise doesn’t make it so.
Bizarre. I can’t think of another language that doesn’t use specific words to differentiate between men and women.
//Uterine transplants are difficult but not impossible//
That doesn’t make a man a woman either, just as a man dressing up as a woman and insisting on being referred to as ‘she’ doesn’t make him a woman. I feel very sorry for people who have problems but the demand that the rest of the world support them in their fantasies – in effect lie - is unreasonable. Whatever the person in question wants to be, they are the child’s mother. Wanting it to be otherwise doesn’t make it so.
look if people want to play dressing up and spare part surgery it's up to them but they should not expect to put biology aside. If they have a Y chromosome they are a bloke, if they don't they are a woman. I'm sick of TROB trying to ram their desires down our throats. Only a woman can give birth end of, they can call themselves what they like.
//I don’t get why you all get so upset over what someone calls themselves or what someone wants to be.//
I what people call themselves or what they "want to be". What I get Angry (not upset) about is that there is a child in all of this who, if "Freddy" gets his/her/its way, will be told that the person who gave birth to him or her is now its father. Freddy is not and never will be the child's father. It might be thought in some circles that she (I'll use that for now because she is the child's mother after all) is, but she isn't. It's all very well for Freddy to maintain this ridiculous charade in order to "be whatever she wants" but the child should be paramount in any considerations.
The "respect" that Jim speaks of should be directed towards the child and not to its mother who - for whatever reason- wants to now call herself the child's father. If this country has any pretence of protecting children from abuse this ludicrous case should be struck out forthwith. I would go further and say that if Freddy should persist in maintaining the pretence that she is the child's father then the child should be removed from her because the situation is likely to cause the child psychological difficulties or even harm.
I what people call themselves or what they "want to be". What I get Angry (not upset) about is that there is a child in all of this who, if "Freddy" gets his/her/its way, will be told that the person who gave birth to him or her is now its father. Freddy is not and never will be the child's father. It might be thought in some circles that she (I'll use that for now because she is the child's mother after all) is, but she isn't. It's all very well for Freddy to maintain this ridiculous charade in order to "be whatever she wants" but the child should be paramount in any considerations.
The "respect" that Jim speaks of should be directed towards the child and not to its mother who - for whatever reason- wants to now call herself the child's father. If this country has any pretence of protecting children from abuse this ludicrous case should be struck out forthwith. I would go further and say that if Freddy should persist in maintaining the pretence that she is the child's father then the child should be removed from her because the situation is likely to cause the child psychological difficulties or even harm.
//the day may not be far off when transgender women (ie, people born male) are capable of giving birth. //
womb transplant - tick. however, persons born with "x-y" chromosomes have narrow hips. for such a person to give birth (or even, possibly, to carry a foetus to term) would require radical surgery on their pelvis. would the risks of so doing be outweighed by any benefit of allowing "x-y"s to give birth?
womb transplant - tick. however, persons born with "x-y" chromosomes have narrow hips. for such a person to give birth (or even, possibly, to carry a foetus to term) would require radical surgery on their pelvis. would the risks of so doing be outweighed by any benefit of allowing "x-y"s to give birth?
///transphobia
noun
dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.///
The problem is that "phobia" has in recent years been used to describe a hatred, loathing, dislike or prejudice. Its original meaning was indeed fear (it comes from the Greek "phobos" meaning aversion or fear) and is still used in medicine to describe an acute (and often irrational) anxiety disorder. I don't know why it has been hijacked. Probably because those needing to use such a term couldn't be bothered to think of anything else.
noun
dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.///
The problem is that "phobia" has in recent years been used to describe a hatred, loathing, dislike or prejudice. Its original meaning was indeed fear (it comes from the Greek "phobos" meaning aversion or fear) and is still used in medicine to describe an acute (and often irrational) anxiety disorder. I don't know why it has been hijacked. Probably because those needing to use such a term couldn't be bothered to think of anything else.
You’re using the word incorrectly, as people often do.
You’re confusing questioning the validity of this person’s claims with a phobia. People are perfectly entitled to question, criticise and disagree - that doesn’t make them ‘transphobic’ and it is entirely absurd to suggest that it does.
If you want to carry on using it incorrectly that is, of course, your prerogative, but you should expect people to pick you up on the wrong usage.
You’re confusing questioning the validity of this person’s claims with a phobia. People are perfectly entitled to question, criticise and disagree - that doesn’t make them ‘transphobic’ and it is entirely absurd to suggest that it does.
If you want to carry on using it incorrectly that is, of course, your prerogative, but you should expect people to pick you up on the wrong usage.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul1 min ago
How it Works4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago