Links
Portal |  Forum | Core Values | 
MindRomp Forum  

FAQ Janitors Arcade
Go Back   MindRomp Forum > General Discussion > News, Sports & Politics

News, Sports & Politics Hello, good evening, and welcome...

View Poll Results: What. The. Fuck.
WTF? 0 0%
WTF?? 0 0%
Bacon 4 100.00%
Voters: 4. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 9th August 2019, 08:40 PM   #449885  /  #51
Brother Daniel
bad case of gleeks
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
Is it treating someone as a being of less worth to understand they have a biological sex, and that it matters and can't ever be changed?
This appears to be one of those questions that is carefully crafted to have zero possibility of contributing usefully to the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
I agree
Good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
But surely it's circular because it assumes that the reader already has knowledge of the term being defined.
You're assuming that self-reference is always circular. That's like saying that the equation "x = 2x - 5" can't have a solution because the variable appears on both sides of the "=".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Either way, language used to create laws and policies should aim for the greatest level of clarity.
See below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
In order to know if your deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender corresponds to your birth sex, you must have some idea of what it meas to have an experience of gender which matches your birth sex. The only thing we have in society which would allow someone to make that comparison are sex stereotypes. If you know of another I'm all ears.
What's important in this context (given that this is a bill that's largely intended to protect transfolk) is how people know that their "deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender" doesn't correspond to their birth sex. And the only answer needed is: Everyone is a much better authority on her/his own feelings than anyone else is.

If you want, go ahead and criticise the bill for making reference to feelings at all. (You could make some headway in that direction.) But the substance of your criticism so far is nothing more than imagineering some way for someone else's feelings (involving an experience that neither you nor I have) to make sense to you, and challenging me to come up with a better imagineering. How can that get us anywhere?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
It is obfuscation and completely irrelevent. We're not talking about people with disorders of sexual development, but people who have functional reproductive systems and who claim by virtue of some sort of gender essence that they really belong as members of the opposite sex.
It is relevant, and will remain relevant, as long as you insist on biological sex as the end-all-and-be-all of gender (which you are doing even though you think you aren't) and also complain about the alternatives being less than perfectly "clear".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
BTW, that isn't my view of gender or sex.
[...]
Gender is an old fashioned idea which needs to die.
Gender is all about categorisation. If the idea of gender "dies", then (to name just one not-so-random example of the consequences) there would no longer be any such thing as a "women's shelter" (something that you apparently value, as judged from previous conversations). As long as you advocate for such things existing, you're advocating for keeping the idea of gender alive and well, whether you understand it or not. It doesn't matter how much you try to spin your view as wanting to kill gender while merely paying sex the attention it's due; the fact remains that you're just advocating keeping gender equal to sex.

And that's why I keep mentioning intersex people. Because you complain of ambiguity in the concept of gender, and you can't get away from it, your way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Why does my sense of 'gender' matter? How does it matter?
Humans are weird. We often pick on people who are "different" in some sense, when we shouldn't. In particular, people who have a "sense of gender" that clashes with other people's expectations are often picked on quite severely - sometimes by denying them opportunities for employment, or pressuring them not to live in certain neighbourhoods, or even subjecting them to outright violence. That's why it matters.

The point of the bill we're discussing is to make it matter less, not to make it matter more.

Would you say that it's important to allow people to pick on transfolk in all of those ways - because some jerk made a bogus legal argument to try to force some immigrant woman to shave his balls?
__________________
Bro D and Imp never really know each other, but they do know each other's nightmares.

Last edited by Brother Daniel; 9th August 2019 at 08:45 PM.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 9th August 2019, 10:40 PM   #449888  /  #52
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post
Would you say that it's important to allow people to pick on transfolk in all of those ways - because some jerk made a bogus legal argument to try to force some immigrant woman to shave his balls?
Would you say that certain laws should only be available to certain types of people?

If they would have listened to me in the 80's, solving the 'gay marriage' kerfuffle, this wouldn't be an issue now.

But of course it is.

I wonder how the Olympics, a sex-segregated set of competitions, will deal with people who try to cheat, by conflating their gender with their sex.

My best guess now is whatever earns shareholders the most money, but I've heard rumours that there is a trans person competing against women in the weightlifting competition. Pretty easy to guess how that would go.
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG View Post
zel, would you consider not enabling the shitting up of our forum by engaging in these conversations?

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th August 2019, 12:50 AM   #449894  /  #53
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post
This appears to be one of those questions that is carefully crafted to have zero possibility of contributing usefully to the discussion.

Rude. It's actually the crux of the issue. Yaniv was denied service because he's male and identifies as a woman. Yaniv believes that women shouldn't be allowed to see him as a male and that to do so violates his human rights.


Quote:
You're assuming that self-reference is always circular. That's like saying that the equation "x = 2x - 5" can't have a solution because the variable appears on both sides of the "=".
Well no because additional information is present which would allow us to work out the value of x.



Quote:
What's important in this context (given that this is a bill that's largely intended to protect transfolk) is how people know that their "deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender" doesn't correspond to their birth sex. And the only answer needed is: Everyone is a much better authority on her/his own feelings than anyone else is.
Feelings are real to the person having them, but that doesn't mean they're always true. We all have deeply felt internal and individual experiences but they're not treated as objective eternal truths. What is so special about this deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender that it must be held as sacrosanct?



Quote:
If you want, go ahead and criticise the bill for making reference to feelings at all. (You could make some headway in that direction.) But the substance of your criticism so far is nothing more than imagineering some way for someone else's feelings (involving an experience that neither you nor I have) to make sense to you, and challenging me to come up with a better imagineering. How can that get us anywhere?
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I was criticising the bill for effectively legislating woman = feminine behaviours and gender roles, and man = masculine behaviours and gender roles. I challenged you to provide another way the bill could be interpreted. You have not done so.



Quote:

It is relevant, and will remain relevant, as long as you insist on biological sex as the end-all-and-be-all of gender (which you are doing even though you think you aren't) and also complain about the alternatives being less than perfectly "clear".
Only around 0.2% of intersex conditions are genuinely intersex. Most intersex conditions are sex specific, for example people with Turner's syndrome are all female. You're trying to pretend that because the boundaries between male and female are a little fuzzy on account of this 0.2% of the population, that the categories themselves don't exist.



Plus, if we're all a hothpotch of random sex characteristics, in what sense can somebody be intersex? Inter means across or between. If there is no such thing as biological sex then there's no such thing as intersex.





Quote:
Gender is all about categorisation. If the idea of gender "dies", then (to name just one not-so-random example of the consequences) there would no longer be any such thing as a "women's shelter" (something that you apparently value, as judged from previous conversations). As long as you advocate for such things existing, you're advocating for keeping the idea of gender alive and well, whether you understand it or not. It doesn't matter how much you try to spin your view as wanting to kill gender while merely paying sex the attention it's due; the fact remains that you're just advocating keeping gender equal to sex.
Women's shelters first came to being when the only recognised definition of a woman was as an adult human female. I'm sure we'd be fine.

I'm not following your logic. Men commit most of the violence against women. Men also commit the vast majority of sexual crimes against women. Because of this women have fought for and created single sex spaces. You appear to be suggesting that women like myself who want single sex spaces are reasonsible for creating the conditions which led to the necessity of single sex spaces. Do you see the logic fail here?


Quote:
And that's why I keep mentioning intersex people. Because you complain of ambiguity in the concept of gender, and you can't get away from it, your way.
You say sex is ambiguous but I bet you know exactly which one of your parents gave birth to you.



At a conservative estimate 98% of us are unambiguously male or female based on chromosomes, hormones, gametes, primary and secondary sex characteristics and gonads.



If you class being a man or a woman based on socially constructed gender roles and behaviours how many of us would fit in to the man and woman boxes? Cordelia Fine has actually looked in to this and I'm sure I could find out if you don't know. I have her books. I have a feeling that it's a very small number.





Quote:
Humans are weird. We often pick on people who are "different" in some sense, when we shouldn't. In particular, people who have a "sense of gender" that clashes with other people's expectations are often picked on quite severely - sometimes by denying them opportunities for employment, or pressuring them not to live in certain neighbourhoods, or even subjecting them to outright violence. That's why it matters.
Yes humans are weird. For millenia male humans have picked on women for not being male. Women who behave in ways that are against other people's expecations of how women should behave get punished quite severely, but even women who do conform are 'punished' for being feminine. There is no way to win. Women are rountinely denied opportunities for employment or training, they are at risk of being sacked for becoming pregnant, or being percieved as being able to become pregnant. They are at risk of extreme violence including sexual violence. Female foetuses are aborted for being the wrong sex. Girls are denied education over the world, they're married off at ridiculously young ages, they have their genitals mutiliated because men don't value women's sexual pleasure and want to fuck a dry tight hole even if it causes women extreme pain. Women are more at risk of abduction and trafficking and it's usually trafficking in to sex slavery. That's why it's important to treat women and girls as a seperate category from males who identify as women and girls. That's why it matters.





Quote:
Would you say that it's important to allow people to pick on transfolk in all of those ways - because some jerk made a bogus legal argument to try to force some immigrant woman to shave his balls?
Well yes, but these protections can be provided without insisting that a male who identifies with feminine stereotypes and gender roles is really a woman just on his say so. You accuse me of upholding the system of gender while supporting a system that promotes the belief that girls like to do quiet girly activities, and boys like to be loud and play sports. And if somebody with a penis prefers 'quiet girly activities' he must really be a girl.

Last edited by Facetious; 10th August 2019 at 01:42 AM.
Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th August 2019, 12:52 AM   #449895  /  #54
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunt View Post

My best guess now is whatever earns shareholders the most money, but I've heard rumours that there is a trans person competing against women in the weightlifting competition. Pretty easy to guess how that would go.

It's not a rumour. Laurel Hubbard is listed on the New Zealand Olympics team as a female competitor.
Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th August 2019, 02:03 AM   #449896  /  #55
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
Why pray the gay away when you can spay the gay away.



This doctor is advocating for the permanent sterilisation of children who don't conform to societal gender roles.





Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 10th August 2019, 03:46 AM   #449901  /  #56
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
Why pray the gay away when you can spay the gay away.
This makes you sound like a cranky old nun, matching your avatar. I chuckled a bit when I realized I've been wearing an old transvestite nun avatar.

There was a time, when I was a boy and the world was full of hope, where these things could be joked about.
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG View Post
zel, would you consider not enabling the shitting up of our forum by engaging in these conversations?

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 11th August 2019, 03:26 PM   #449914  /  #57
Brother Daniel
bad case of gleeks
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
Rude. It's actually the crux of the issue. Yaniv was denied service because he's male and identifies as a woman. Yaniv believes that women shouldn't be allowed to see him as a male and that to do so violates his human rights.
No, it's a rubbish question. You know perfectly well that my answer is: "No, and I have said nothing to indicate otherwise". Furthermore, your question doesn't connect with anything in the bill.

Earlier, you expressed agreement when I argued that Yaniv's case is bogus, even given the bill as written. If you still agree, then the irrelevance of your question should be obvious. If you've reversed yourself now (nothing wrong with doing that, in general), then your question is relevant only if you're assuming your conclusion. Pick your poison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Well no because additional information is present which would allow us to work out the value of x.
Right. And it illustrates why self-reference is not always circular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Feelings are real to the person having them, but that doesn't mean they're always true.
Indeed, they're not even always truth-apt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
We all have deeply felt internal and individual experiences but they're not treated as objective eternal truths. What is so special about this deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender that it must be held as sacrosanct?
I haven't proposed to treat it as sacrosanct, and it's not clear to me that the bill does either. (You haven't yet argued that it does, anyway.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
You were asking about how people "know" what their "deeply felt internal and individual experiences of gender" are, and suggesting that such a self-assessment could be made only with reference to gender stereotypes.

It's as if someone is making a checklist: "Well, I seem feminine w.r.t. this stereotypical variable, and I seem masculine w.r.t. this other one, and -- oh dammit, I have more tick marks in this column than in that column, and oh I guess I have to go see my endocrinologist about it now". That doesn't sound like the experience of any transperson that I've read about or spoken with. Not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
I was criticising the bill for effectively legislating woman = feminine behaviours and gender roles, and man = masculine behaviours and gender roles. I challenged you to provide another way the bill could be interpreted. You have not done so.
I had already given you my interpretation of the bill (before your "challenge"), and you merely threw a stinkbomb in response.

Maybe you could start by showing me where the bill "effectively" legislates that woman = [anything in particular] or that man = [anything in particular].

Here is the full text of the bill. It's rather short. Go for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
You're trying to pretend that because the boundaries between male and female are a little fuzzy on account of this 0.2% of the population, that the categories themselves don't exist.
That's many miles away from anything I've said. Try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
If there is no such thing as biological sex then there's no such thing as intersex.
No one ever said that there was no such thing as biological sex. Look, I'm trying to have a good-faith discussion here. It doesn't help if you start Jeroming everything. Please don't do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
I'm not following your logic.
When you create "spaces" that are for certain types of people to the exclusion of others, you're creating or upholding a social division of humanity into different categories, or "genres". When those genres are in some sense based on or connected to sex, we call them "genders". That's the point of "gender"-- not to say that women must wear pink and men must wear blue, or any other dumb stereotype, but simply to uphold the social relevance of some sort of distinction between men and women.

If you erase "gender" entirely, then the only socially-recognised relevance that an individual's sex would have, that you've mentioned so far in this discussion, would be the business of getting proper medical treatment. And our sex differences would be nothing more than another physical difference, like tall/short or fat/thin. (Those variables can also be relevant to getting good medical treatment, but no one proposes to create social divisions based on them.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
You appear to be suggesting that women like myself who want single sex spaces are reasonsible for creating the conditions which led to the necessity of single sex spaces. Do you see the logic fail here?
Again, many miles away from anything I've said. Logic fail indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
If you class being a man or a woman based on socially constructed gender roles and behaviours how many of us would fit in to the man and woman boxes? Cordelia Fine has actually looked in to this and I'm sure I could find out if you don't know. I have her books. I have a feeling that it's a very small number.
And therefore the trans-ideology zeitgeist has led to a vast flood of people having no idea whether to categorize themselves as women or as men. Oh wait. No, it hasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Yes humans are weird. For millenia male humans have picked on women for not being male. Women who behave in ways that are against other people's expecations of how women should behave get punished quite severely, but even women who do conform are 'punished' for being feminine. There is no way to win. Women are rountinely denied opportunities for employment or training, they are at risk of being sacked for becoming pregnant, or being percieved as being able to become pregnant. They are at risk of extreme violence including sexual violence. Female foetuses are aborted for being the wrong sex. Girls are denied education over the world, they're married off at ridiculously young ages, they have their genitals mutiliated because men don't value women's sexual pleasure and want to fuck a dry tight hole even if it causes women extreme pain. Women are more at risk of abduction and trafficking and it's usually trafficking in to sex slavery.
Yes. All of that is true, and it's horrible, and I'm not denying any of it.

But to recover the context: You asked why a "sense of 'gender'" matters. I answered. Then you wrote this stuff, which doesn't do anything to rebut anything I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
That's why it's important to treat women and girls as a seperate category from males who identify as women and girls. That's why it matters.
In other words, to uphold gender as meaning sex only.

So a question one might ask (I've brought this up before) is: Of all the ways of defining gender, which is the way that causes the least harm, overall?

When I'm wearing my trans-ideology-friendly hat (as I do in discussions with you, but not always otherwise), I would suggest that perhaps the least harm is done by hopping on board the new bandwagon, where sex is used to define gender as a first approximation, but we allow good-faith self-identification to override it. (I would add that the arguments that I often see from the traditionalist side are often (not always) based on devaluing the lives of transfolk, such that instances of great harm to one of them are given relatively little weight in the calculus.)

Now I'm open to the possibility that this suggestion (of the way to do the least harm) is completely and utterly wrong. If you concentrated your efforts on that point, I have a feeling that you'd have a good chance of persuading me.

But what I find interesting is that there's a deeper difference between us. You seem to be resistant to recognizing the question as being an appropriate one to ask!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Quote:
Would you say that it's important to allow people to pick on transfolk in all of those ways ... ?
Well yes,
Is it ok if I assume you meant to say no, in this case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
but these protections can be provided without insisting that a male who identifies with feminine stereotypes and gender roles is really a woman just on his say so.
It appears to me that that's exactly what the bill does. I don't see anything there to force agreement about who is or who isn't a woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
You ... [support] a system that promotes the belief that girls like to do quiet girly activities, and boys like to be loud and play sports. And if somebody with a penis prefers 'quiet girly activities' he must really be a girl.
Another massive strawman.
__________________
Bro D and Imp never really know each other, but they do know each other's nightmares.

Last edited by Brother Daniel; 11th August 2019 at 03:29 PM.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 11th August 2019, 03:37 PM   #449916  /  #58
Brother Daniel
bad case of gleeks
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunt View Post
If they would have listened to me in the 80's, solving the 'gay marriage' kerfuffle, this wouldn't be an issue now.
What were you saying in the '80s? Just curious.
__________________
Bro D and Imp never really know each other, but they do know each other's nightmares.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 11th August 2019, 05:30 PM   #449917  /  #59
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunt View Post
If they would have listened to me in the 80's, solving the 'gay marriage' kerfuffle, this wouldn't be an issue now.
What were you saying in the '80s? Just curious.
Then, I thought marriage should be for anyone who wanted it, regardless of who they were fucking, what was in their pants, or how they identified.

Another way to phrase it - the government may never ask your sex without damned good reason.

Want gay marriage? OK. Want sibling marriage? Great. Want to marry your nana, go ahead.

There are cases where the protections included in 'marriage' are desireable for reasons other than 'who I want to bang mostly'.

Oh, and I think the government should also not be allowed to look into who you are fucking, without damned god reason.

If there were no special treatments afforded one gender, many who seek to impersonate the other gender would lose motivation.

And you said
Quote:
And therefore the trans-ideology zeitgeist has led to a vast flood of people having no idea whether to categorize themselves as women or as men. Oh wait. No, it hasn't.
How would we know? If there were a study about 'sudden onset gender dysphoria', would it be funded, publicized and researched for years? Or would it die on the vine, because no-one wants to be attacked by the trans-lobby?
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG View Post
zel, would you consider not enabling the shitting up of our forum by engaging in these conversations?

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
longhair75 (11th August 2019)
Old 12th August 2019, 03:42 AM   #449933  /  #60
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post
No, it's a rubbish question. You know perfectly well that my answer is: "No, and I have said nothing to indicate otherwise". Furthermore, your question doesn't connect with anything in the bill.

I didn't say it was, my question was connected to Yaniv and his court case.





Quote:
I haven't proposed to treat it as sacrosanct, and it's not clear to me that the bill does either. (You haven't yet argued that it does, anyway.)
If it's not treated as sacrosanct then why are women being punished for not believing in it? Women have lost their jobs, been attacked and threatened. In the UK our meetings are protested, venues are bombarded with threats or lies suggesting that the women are a hate group who want to physically harm transpeople. This is to get the venue to cancel and it has worked on a few occasoins. A woman has been punched in the face. A trans identified male attempted to attack a woman after an event and had to be dragged away by 2 security guards. Men in masks stormed a meeting and were photographing women attending. Somebody made a bomb threat before a meeting. Female academics have been placed on shit lists and students are conspiring to mass complain in order to get them sacked.

Recently a bunch of mostly US academics who seemed predominantly to be from english departments signed a mass petition to try and get a woman sacked from her job as the editor of an academic journal which explored issues relating to disabilities. The crime of this woman is that she feels chlidren with gender identity issues are not being well served in the current climate which ignores other reasons why they might have gender identity issues, but instead rushes to affirm and get them on the medical pathway.


I saw the videos of the protest when Meghan Murphey talked at Vancover public library. Crowds outside trying to intimidating the mainly female audience members from going in to the venue. The library in question has now been denied a place in Vancouver Pride unless they promise to ban groups who want to critically discuss doctrines like gender ideology.





If you don't believe gender identity is sacrosanct, and you think women should be allowed to discuss it, debate, it and ultimately reject it - then you, like me, should find this all bloody alarming.


Quote:
It's as if someone is making a checklist: "Well, I seem feminine w.r.t. this stereotypical variable, and I seem masculine w.r.t. this other one, and -- oh dammit, I have more tick marks in this column than in that column, and oh I guess I have to go see my endocrinologist about it now". That doesn't sound like the experience of any transperson that I've read about or spoken with. Not even close.
No, they say things like ''when I was 3 I wanted an ironing board, I didn't want to play with toy soldiers cars'', or ''my son was assigned female at birth, when he was little he never wanted to wear dresses or play with dolls''.



Quote:
That's many miles away from anything I've said. Try again.
Quote:
No one ever said that there was no such thing as biological sex.
Oh my sweet summer child.

Spoiler



Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 12th August 2019, 04:15 AM   #449934  /  #61
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
Two posts


Quote:
When you create "spaces" that are for certain types of people to the exclusion of others, you're creating or upholding a social division of humanity into different categories, or "genres". When those genres are in some sense based on or connected to sex, we call them "genders". That's the point of "gender"-- not to say that women must wear pink and men must wear blue, or any other dumb stereotype, but simply to uphold the social relevance of some sort of distinction between men and women.
Men creating spaces only for men and excluding women creates and upholds the social division of humanity into different categories. Men are not oppressed by women. Men oppress women. Men exploit women sexually, reproductively, and for unpaid labour. When women have seperate spaces it is for completely different reasons to men. Men's single sex spaces have been places like universities, boardrooms, governments, religious institutions as members of the priesthood. Women's single sex spaces are toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, rape and domestic violence refuges.



Gender is the socially constructed system that says men by virtue of their sex are best suited to universities, boardrooms, governments and leading religions, and women by virtue of our sex need to be excluded.



Quote:
If you erase "gender" entirely, then the only socially-recognised relevance that an individual's sex would have, that you've mentioned so far in this discussion, would be the business of getting proper medical treatment. And our sex differences would be nothing more than another physical difference, like tall/short or fat/thin. (Those variables can also be relevant to getting good medical treatment, but no one proposes to create social divisions based on them.)
Not seeing the problem here.




Quote:
And therefore the trans-ideology zeitgeist has led to a vast flood of people having no idea whether to categorize themselves as women or as men. Oh wait. No, it hasn't.
Oh my sweet sweet summer child.


https://gender.wikia.org/wiki/Non-binary


Quote:




In other words, to uphold gender as meaning sex only.
No, to return to biological definitions and to chuck the gender guff in the bin.

Quote:

When I'm wearing my trans-ideology-friendly hat (as I do in discussions with you, but not always otherwise), I would suggest that perhaps the least harm is done by hopping on board the new bandwagon, where sex is used to define gender as a first approximation, but we allow good-faith self-identification to override it. (I would add that the arguments that I often see from the traditionalist side are often (not always) based on devaluing the lives of transfolk, such that instances of great harm to one of them are given relatively little weight in the calculus.)
Rebecca Reilley Cooper has the best response to this.


https://rebeccarc.com/2018/01/14/som...-progressives

Quote:
Now I'm open to the possibility that this suggestion (of the way to do the least harm) is completely and utterly wrong. If you concentrated your efforts on that point, I have a feeling that you'd have a good chance of persuading me.
Gender is a yardstick, it's a way of measuring men and women according to how well they perform masculinity and feminininty. My view is we don't need the yardstick. Men and women should just be terms to describe people based on their sex, like we do for cows and bulls, ewes and rams etc. Trans ideology wants to uphold the yardstick, they believe in the yardstick, they think the yardstick is true, but a transwoman instead of being judged according to the man yardstick wants to be judged against the woman one, and vice versa for trans men. They also want a few more yardsticks for all the other gender identities they've created. But it's all the same, you're judged according to your gender performance. How is this not harmful to everyone bar the few people who get some sense of validation from it?



Quote:
But what I find interesting is that there's a deeper difference between us. You seem to be resistant to recognizing the question as being an appropriate one to ask!
I'm a gender abolitionist. I believe it's an inherently harmful concept. It's like asking a marxist to think of a way to make capitalism less harmful.

Quote:
Is it ok if I assume you meant to say no, in this case?
Yes.




Quote:
It appears to me that that's exactly what the bill does. I don't see anything there to force agreement about who is or who isn't a woman.
Then why is it happening?
Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 12th August 2019, 03:06 PM   #449938  /  #62
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
.

Last edited by Facetious; 12th August 2019 at 03:25 PM.
Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 13th August 2019, 06:27 AM   #449955  /  #63
MondoVman
Giant Member
 
MondoVman's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Southwest Atlantica
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
.
Profound 3rd post

ETA: Rebecca C's article spoke volumes. Thanks for posting the link.
__________________
Never see them let you sweat!
Online dating is less painful than playing mafia.

Last edited by MondoVman; 13th August 2019 at 06:30 AM.
MondoVman is online now   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 13th August 2019, 11:07 AM   #449958  /  #64
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
If you have an hour to spare this talk by Rebecca is also very good. She looks at the doctrine of gender identity and examines the claims that would need to be true about it in order for it to do the work it needs to do.
Spoiler





And this article by the Daniel Kaufman i.e The Electric Agora is worth a read.
Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 19th August 2019, 08:23 PM   #450007  /  #65
Brother Daniel
bad case of gleeks
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
Quote:
I haven't proposed to treat it as sacrosanct, and it's not clear to me that the bill does either. (You haven't yet argued that it does, anyway.)
If it's not treated as sacrosanct then why are women being punished for not believing in it?
Your guess is as good as mine (or, more likely, better). But asking the question in this way, in this context, makes it look as if you're blaming a specifically Canadian bill, introduced in 2016 and passed in 2017, for a phenomenon that was already happening in multiple countries before 2016.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
If you don't believe gender identity is sacrosanct, and you think women should be allowed to discuss it, debate, it and ultimately reject it - then you, like me, should find this all bloody alarming.
Yes, "bloody alarming" is a good way to put it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
No, they say things like ''when I was 3 I wanted an ironing board, I didn't want to play with toy soldiers cars'', or ''my son was assigned female at birth, when he was little he never wanted to wear dresses or play with dolls''.
Yes, sometimes. But that's not usually presented as a reason for deciding to transition; it's presented after the fact, as an early symptom of ... well, of something. (And yes, I understand that it's still problematic even if looked at in that way.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Oh my sweet summer child.
Spoiler
[video]
Holy shit.

Ok, clearly I shouldn't have said "no one".

No one posting in this thread said it, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
Gender is the socially constructed system that says men by virtue of their sex are best suited to universities, boardrooms, governments and leading religions, and women by virtue of our sex need to be excluded.
None of that is part of the definition of "gender". None of that is a necessary consequence of gender.

In practice, I doubt you'd find anyone on the trans-ideology side who would want to exclude women (by whatever definition) from universities, boardrooms, governments, or religious leadership. You'll find plenty of that rubbish on the "biological definitions only" side, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Quote:
If you erase "gender" entirely, then the only socially-recognised relevance that an individual's sex would have, that you've mentioned so far in this discussion, would be the business of getting proper medical treatment. And our sex differences would be nothing more than another physical difference, like tall/short or fat/thin. (Those variables can also be relevant to getting good medical treatment, but no one proposes to create social divisions based on them.)
Not seeing the problem here.
Well then, you've just abolished women's sports, for one thing.

You've also abolished women's shelters. You might imagine that erasing "gender" would somehow magically erase the need for such things, but that would be naive, I think. (It would also undermine most of your previous arguments regarding the damage done to the integrity of such institutions by trans ideology.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Quote:
And therefore the trans-ideology zeitgeist has led to a vast flood of people having no idea whether to categorize themselves as women or as men. Oh wait. No, it hasn't.
Oh my sweet sweet summer child.

https://gender.wikia.org/wiki/Non-binary
Maybe you missed my words "vast flood"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
That's why it's important to treat women and girls as a seperate category from males who identify as women and girls.
In other words, to uphold gender as meaning sex only.
No, to return to biological definitions and to chuck the gender guff in the bin.
(Earlier quote reinstated in order to restore context.)

Upholding socially-relevant categorization related to sex, while claiming to be a gender abolitionist? Does not compute. It's not internally consistent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Quote:
perhaps the least harm is done by
Rebecca Reilley Cooper has the best response to this.

https://rebeccarc.com/2018/01/14/som...-progressives
Thanks for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Gender is a yardstick, it's a way of measuring men and women according to how well they perform masculinity and feminininty. My view is we don't need the yardstick. Men and women should just be terms to describe people based on their sex, like we do for cows and bulls, ewes and rams etc. Trans ideology wants to uphold the yardstick, they believe in the yardstick, they think the yardstick is true, but a transwoman instead of being judged according to the man yardstick wants to be judged against the woman one, and vice versa for trans men. They also want a few more yardsticks for all the other gender identities they've created. But it's all the same, you're judged according to your gender performance. How is this not harmful to everyone bar the few people who get some sense of validation from it?
Ok, I'll agree right off the top that we don't need the yardstick, and that the yardstick stinks.

I want to disagree with the part about what "trans ideology wants"; I don't think that upholding the yardstick is a necessary part of it, and some of the more articulate defences of trans ideology that I've come across would deny that that's a part of it. But. Dammit, you're probably right. In practice, that's pretty much how it looks.

I'd still question the identification between the yardstick and the concept of "gender" itself -- except that in the present context, that comment (from me) probably counts as a useless nitpick.

So you've answered well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Quote:
But what I find interesting is that there's a deeper difference between us. You seem to be resistant to recognizing the question as being an appropriate one to ask!
I'm a gender abolitionist. I believe it's an inherently harmful concept. It's like asking a marxist to think of a way to make capitalism less harmful.
I was about to say something like "yes, I know you think you're a gender abolitionist, but you haven't convinced me that you are (see above)".

But.

Words themselves aren't sacrosanct. We're apparently attaching different sets of meanings to "gender". So if I keep pigheadedly insisting on the word having exactly the meaning that I attach to it, I'm just making the conversation more difficult.

If your use of the word "gender" carries with it all that business of the "yardstick" (being judged according to gender performance, etc.), then maybe I can make sense of your claim to be a gender abolitionist after all. (Even given my use of the word, you could probably be called something like a "gender minimalist". )

And that perhaps answers my earlier objection, further up in this post. But I'll leave it there without editing, just for the sake of getting a snapshot of me in the middle of possibly changing my mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious
Quote:
It appears to me that that's exactly what the bill does. I don't see anything there to force agreement about who is or who isn't a woman.
Then why is it happening?
All I can say to this is to repeat my response to your question at the very top of this post.

Anyway, thanks again. I think this discussion has been useful.
__________________
Bro D and Imp never really know each other, but they do know each other's nightmares.

Last edited by Brother Daniel; 19th August 2019 at 08:25 PM.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 19th August 2019, 08:27 PM   #450008  /  #66
Brother Daniel
bad case of gleeks
 
Brother Daniel's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
If you have an hour to spare this talk by Rebecca is also very good. She looks at the doctrine of gender identity and examines the claims that would need to be true about it in order for it to do the work it needs to do.
Spoiler





And this article by the Daniel Kaufman i.e The Electric Agora is worth a read.
Bookmarking to try to remind myself to give this stuff a look eventually.
__________________
Bro D and Imp never really know each other, but they do know each other's nightmares.
Brother Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 19th August 2019, 08:35 PM   #450009  /  #67
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
You guys are doing great with this. I haven't been.


With my qualifications for criticism out in the open, I still want to offer that I wish you two could have an agreed statement of facts. There may be less disagreement than there was (or than there seems)

Good reading you two, heckling aside.
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG View Post
zel, would you consider not enabling the shitting up of our forum by engaging in these conversations?

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 23rd August 2019, 05:28 PM   #450088  /  #68
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post

Words themselves aren't sacrosanct. We're apparently attaching different sets of meanings to "gender". So if I keep pigheadedly insisting on the word having exactly the meaning that I attach to it, I'm just making the conversation more difficult.

If your use of the word "gender" carries with it all that business of the "yardstick" (being judged according to gender performance, etc.), then maybe I can make sense of your claim to be a gender abolitionist after all. (Even given my use of the word, you could probably be called something like a "gender minimalist". )

Yes, there is a lot of talking at cross purposes because of different understandings of the key terms. Feminists and advocates for gender ideology make a distinction between sex and gender. Sex being the physical and gender being largely socially constructed. I think feminists went there first back in the 1950's and 60's. Before then only the word sex was used but it didn't just refer to the physical characteristics, but also psychological. If you were of the female sex you weren't just capable (or percieved to be capable) of becoming pregnant, you were also percieved to be passive, weak, less intelligent. Feminists wanted to create a distinction between the material reality of sex, and the things people said you were because of your sex. Thus the sex/gender distinction was born.



Gender ideologists also like the distinction because it gives people who are not of a given sex a claim to membership of that sex.
Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 23rd August 2019, 08:42 PM   #450089  /  #69
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Daniel View Post

Words themselves aren't sacrosanct. We're apparently attaching different sets of meanings to "gender". So if I keep pigheadedly insisting on the word having exactly the meaning that I attach to it, I'm just making the conversation more difficult.

If your use of the word "gender" carries with it all that business of the "yardstick" (being judged according to gender performance, etc.), then maybe I can make sense of your claim to be a gender abolitionist after all. (Even given my use of the word, you could probably be called something like a "gender minimalist". )

Yes, there is a lot of talking at cross purposes because of different understandings of the key terms. Feminists and advocates for gender ideology make a distinction between sex and gender. Sex being the physical and gender being largely socially constructed. I think feminists went there first back in the 1950's and 60's. Before then only the word sex was used but it didn't just refer to the physical characteristics, but also psychological. If you were of the female sex you weren't just capable (or percieved to be capable) of becoming pregnant, you were also percieved to be passive, weak, less intelligent. Feminists wanted to create a distinction between the material reality of sex, and the things people said you were because of your sex. Thus the sex/gender distinction was born.



Gender ideologists also like the distinction because it gives people who are not of a given sex a claim to membership of that sex.
I've heard people expressing contrary opinions to the 'new gender math', but they are near-universally hated. Can you point out some reasonable criticisms? (I've heard Gad Saad, Dr. D. Soh, J. Peterson, a teeny bit of Meghan Murphy) Most of these folks are painted as haters or ignorant, so where IS the reasonable discussion taking place?

With their strict rules about 'lifetime bans for dead-naming', Twitter certainly is no help...
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG View Post
zel, would you consider not enabling the shitting up of our forum by engaging in these conversations?

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 24th August 2019, 02:16 PM   #450097  /  #70
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
Everyone who criticises gender ideology is labeled as hateful and/or ignorant. You can't get away with even the most mild and gentle of critiques.



Read more Meghan Murphy, she's ace. Her website Feminist Current has some good critiques by different people.



Rebecca Reilly Cooper has written a beginners guide. Might be useful if you don't know a huge amount about the debate.



https://sexandgenderintro.com


I'm British so most of the resources I read are UK based.



If you want academic critiques of gender ideology you could also try Sheila Jeffrey's, Jane Clare Jones, Kathleen Stock and Holly Lawford-Smith.



In the UK there are a few organisations who are conducting studies, making articles. Women's Place UK, Fair Play for Women and ForWomen.Scot. Women's Place UK has held talks all over the UK and the videos are all available online. You're an active type so for you I recommend the one by Dr Emma Hilton who is a developmental biologist. She discusses sex differences between men and women, and then takes you on a tour through the incredibly low quality research used by the IOC to inform their decision to allow trans identified males in to the women's category of sports.


The article below is about the non-binary phenomenon, I like it for two reasons. The first is that it uses the term 'begging the question' correctly, and the second is that it nicely critiques the view of gender pushed by trans activists.



https://medium.com/conatus-features/...g-60cab2aff181
Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 24th August 2019, 05:25 PM   #450102  /  #71
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
Everyone who criticises gender ideology is labeled as hateful and/or ignorant. You can't get away with even the most mild and gentle of critiques.
Or questions. ANY questions, it seems.

Quote:
Read more Meghan Murphy, she's ace. Her website Feminist Current has some good critiques by different people.
Having been over-filled with feminist crap for too long, I've stopped listening, but I will, because of your recommendation. Can you suggest a specific piece? Or just wander her site?
Quote:
Rebecca Reilly Cooper has written a beginners guide. Might be useful if you don't know a huge amount about the debate.



https://sexandgenderintro.com


I'm British so most of the resources I read are UK based.
Haven't even heard of her, so thanks.
Quote:
If you want academic critiques of gender ideology you could also try Sheila Jeffrey's, Jane Clare Jones, Kathleen Stock and Holly Lawford-Smith.



In the UK there are a few organisations who are conducting studies, making articles. Women's Place UK, Fair Play for Women and ForWomen.Scot. Women's Place UK has held talks all over the UK and the videos are all available online. You're an active type so for you I recommend the one by Dr Emma Hilton who is a developmental biologist. She discusses sex differences between men and women, and then takes you on a tour through the incredibly low quality research used by the IOC to inform their decision to allow trans identified males in to the women's category of sports.
They have, thankfully, ruined the Olympics.

The last time I ran with an Olympic athlete, I told him that the Olympics was the worst thing that could happen to a terrific athlete. I think he understood. (we still had a meal together after the run)
Quote:


The article below is about the non-binary phenomenon, I like it for two reasons. The first is that it uses the term 'begging the question' correctly, and the second is that it nicely critiques the view of gender pushed by trans activists.



https://medium.com/conatus-features/...g-60cab2aff181
This is a bunch of reading I will be doing later. As you might have guessed, I have a couple of runs to attend today. Thanks, Facetious!

I thought Dr. Soh's description of what happened around the 'sudden onset gender dysphoria' study was interesting, but I don't know how to 'vet' her claims. I'll go review it because I think it was very interesting to see the pressures academia puts on people with fashions like this.
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG View Post
zel, would you consider not enabling the shitting up of our forum by engaging in these conversations?

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 26th August 2019, 07:16 PM   #450137  /  #72
Facetious
normal boring cunty type of woman
 
Facetious's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: it's grim up north
Just browse Feminist Current, it's not indepth analysis but it does give an overview of what's happening around the world.



Quote:
I thought Dr. Soh's description of what happened around the 'sudden onset gender dysphoria' study was interesting, but I don't know how to 'vet' her claims. I'll go review it because I think it was very interesting to see the pressures academia puts on people with fashions like this.

Lisa Littman's study? It was definitely pulled for a period of time, Littman was told to make some changes to the article and then it was re-published.



The fact that TRAs are managing to suppress research on rapid onset gender dyshporia is concerning. They point out that it isn't medically recognised. This is true because it's a new phenomenon, it needs research to see if it is actually a real thing. There are young women who used to identify as men who are now speaking out and saying they were heavily influenced by social media, that rapid onset gender dysphoria fits what they experienced. To the sensible none woke world, this is something that should be researched so clinicians are aware of it and can make sure that they're properly screening young adults before permanently altering their body through cross-sex hormones and radical surgery. The woke world on the other hand are having none of it and are putting huge effort in to suppressing research that doesn't fit their political agenda.
Facetious is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 27th August 2019, 04:15 PM   #450147  /  #73
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facetious View Post
Just browse Feminist Current, it's not indepth analysis but it does give an overview of what's happening around the world.



Quote:
I thought Dr. Soh's description of what happened around the 'sudden onset gender dysphoria' study was interesting, but I don't know how to 'vet' her claims. I'll go review it because I think it was very interesting to see the pressures academia puts on people with fashions like this.

Lisa Littman's study? It was definitely pulled for a period of time, Littman was told to make some changes to the article and then it was re-published.



The fact that TRAs are managing to suppress research on rapid onset gender dyshporia is concerning. They point out that it isn't medically recognised. This is true because it's a new phenomenon, it needs research to see if it is actually a real thing. There are young women who used to identify as men who are now speaking out and saying they were heavily influenced by social media, that rapid onset gender dysphoria fits what they experienced. To the sensible none woke world, this is something that should be researched so clinicians are aware of it and can make sure that they're properly screening young adults before permanently altering their body through cross-sex hormones and radical surgery. The woke world on the other hand are having none of it and are putting huge effort in to suppressing research that doesn't fit their political agenda.
The suppression of that research is one of the reasons I am so unaccepting of all the hogwash. An idea which can't weather lively debate is going to have that effect.

It's distressing how much the various academic sorts have been twisted into compliance. They can't ALL agree (in a room with 12 academics, it is common to find at least 13 opinions on a topic) but they sure are being presented as if they do.

This cartoon...


Reminds me of a pal, who has a kid she identified as 'trans'. There will be, and has been, no contrary opinions shared. If the subject were anything else, I wouldn't worry about her getting enough opinions (opinionated friend group ) but in this case, there is only acceptance.

Not that it is forced, you understand. Just that anyone not accepting will be treated as a pariah.
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG View Post
zel, would you consider not enabling the shitting up of our forum by engaging in these conversations?

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 28th August 2019, 06:55 PM   #450164  /  #74
OmicronPersei8
Declared candidate for Best Poster 2017 of the fuckin decade
 
OmicronPersei8's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Gib's
I like this Cunt facetious collaboration
__________________
I am Lrrr, ruler of the planet OmicronPersei8.

Jerome: My mistake.
OmicronPersei8 is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 28th August 2019, 08:52 PM   #450167  /  #75
Cunt
Unregistered member
 
Cunt's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Circum-polar region
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmicronPersei8 View Post
I like this Cunt facetious collaboration
It's almost as if I have no respect for feminism, but respect feminists just like real people!
__________________
---------
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-Lenny Bruce

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSG View Post
zel, would you consider not enabling the shitting up of our forum by engaging in these conversations?

Cunt is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Reply

  MindRomp Forum > General Discussion > News, Sports & Politics

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Thread Killed By
Men, women and parental rights. Cunt Human Endeavour 102 29th November 2019 05:10 PM
Free speech, human rights, polarity and finding humanity in common ground charlou Human Endeavour 19 29th June 2015 03:31 AM
Mens Rights Activism groups are more about protecting shrinking privilege... Adenosine Human Endeavour 115 9th September 2013 09:53 PM
Human Dignity and Free Expression oblivion Human Endeavour 12 21st March 2013 08:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2011-2018 MindRomp.org