Comments by "Lewis Smith" (@lewissmith350) on "" video.

  1. People like JK Rowling, are not saying trans women are not saying that trans women present a threat to women because they are trans, they are saying they have a fear , because they are biological males, and they feel that whether a biological meal identifies as a man or as a woman they still have the threat levels that a biological male has whatever they identify as.
    5
  2. What did you do about it.
    4
  3. That's exactly the kind of toxic remark they are mentioning in the title here. Instead of reasonable debate you come along with this line. In reality we should see how we can be nice to trans people, and also understand the concerns of biological women. Just labelling people far right, for acknowledging something that 99.999% of people can observe just walking around on daily life, that biological sex exists, is not a argument that is going to encourage understanding and tolerance.
    4
  4. ​ @deathmetalmusicals6759 they tried to ban her. Did you support them firing her for her opinions.
    4
  5. ​ @davidjames2910 and maybe David Attenborough about nature, and Sadiq Khan about multi cultural ism and it's benefits. Joyce would be a top guest.
    3
  6. The people being horribly mean, are often the most extreme trans rights activists, like some who on their march on Sunday had banners with threats towards people of other political beliefs.
    3
  7. I think Kier stamer was right to say this judgement brought clarity, it has been an issue that has harmed the left across the Western world, on some issues the left have to accept that they are the servants of the people, and most people currently do not agree with the belief that a trans woman is as much in every way a woman as a biological woman. Maybe in a couple of decades if that is a popular belief among everybody, then it can be what this state has, but till then I think you have to recognise what most people think. Also I think we also have to acknowledge, at 100% yes in many situations the trans woman, is the most vulnerable person in a situation, but in some situations it is the other way around. A big strong individual who was born a biological male, will in certain situations, such as women's sports, and women's prison cells, be the least vulnerable person, surely a sensible nuance society, accepts the sense of the gender critical position, but also learns a kind of tolerance towards trans individuals, I certainly don't think it's fair, the castigate women who are doing something which is pretty normal, there are clearly situations where a biological woman will feel threatened when a biological male is present, and it is ok to have certain safeguarding rules to protect their rights, whether that biological woman is the richest the most powerful in our country, or the poorest female glaswegian shoplifter who's in a prison cell in some Scottish prison, their safeguarding still matters, and it was right the Scottish people stood up and spoke up when the Bryson case occurred. I mean nobody would call a biological woman a bigot, if she said she felt threatened walking down an alleyway with a biological male following 20 metres behind her, because it's a sensible innate fear for women to have about their own protection. So we should not be surprised that there are some biological women who are threatened, just as much even possibly more so, by the thought of there being biological males whether those biological males identify as men or identify as women in their safe spaces. I don't think it is fair to call women bigots as they have a quite nirnal evolutionary created fear of the opposite gender, in certain situations. It's not toxic to recognise that. We should be nice to trans people, And to understand the fears that those women have.
    3
  8. That is a typical toxic response from trans rights activists. Trying to frame what the other side said in the most extreme and offensive way you possibly can. All you do is push everybody away from you and push everybody away from you. How can we have some kind of common ground, if you try to frame everybody else who has even the mildest criticism of you as an extremist. Hellen Joyce did not say the things you said in the way you said it. What you have done is frame something she said, in the most extreme way you can, so you can paint her in the most extreme way you can. If you listen to what she says she is clearly a moderate on this issue, and all she said was that there could be problems in the future, in terms of the potential very high number of detransitioners, who would be people who would need long lasting support as of the very powerful chemicals that were used in the transition processes. She was not asking for some kind of genocide, but every trans rights activist deliberately misinterpret what she said, the problem with that misinterpretation, if you do not own every single Media organisation in the world, so it is very easy to see that she didn't say what you said in the way you're saying it. So all that happens there, is the few things you're able to say in the media, are obviously discounted a statements that a misinterpreting whatever people said, so people are pushed away from any level of support for the trans rights activist position. And the people who know Helen Joyce and Helen stanilan, know what they believe, and know what they say and read their books and understand they don't have those extremist beliefs that you claim they do, so all that happens, is your side give out messaging which is obviously as strong as a creampie, while the gender critical people argue with very intelligent statements about the reality of biological sex and all that. Which is way in many court cases and in many dinner parties your belief system, is destroyed because of it is just powder puff, Robert gender critical arguments have rigidity and strength and rational reason behind them. What Helen Joyce is obviously saying, is that the chemicals that did the transition process was so strong, and the surgery was so final, that if it is the case that this was are some people think now they may not be right they may be wrong, that this was a kind of a social contagion, then there will be a very high number of de transitioners, and these people will need medical care for the rest of their lives out of the chemicals and such used in the process of transition. Now she may be wrong she may be right, but obviously she was not calling for a genocide, she was talking of the potential risks, that if this was a social contagion, and some people argue that because of statistics they claim exist around Hollywood children, which may or may not be true then there will be problems to do with the transition and the healthcare cost of that in the future. She clearly was not calling for a genocide, every interview in speech to have made obviously indicates that fact that she was not calling for a genocide, but the trans rights activists argue that she was, the problem with their argument, if all you have to do is read a book or see a speech from heen Joyce and see she is not supporting any form of genocide whatsoever. In fact Helen staniland, is probably anything mildly to the left in terms of trans rights, in his support for much toleration and understanding and compassion and kindness, compared to the vast majority of the population of the whole, for whom the majority position at times borders on, just not being bothered about the issue or the people involved at all, like Americans about their massive homelessness of problem. Helen staniland actually wants good things to happen to these people who suffer from gender dysphoria, whereas most people are not really all that interested and are more concerned with their own concerns and lives so would be individualusts about this, uncaring Like American's about homeless people. The truth is the only people following this issue, know that Helen Joyce does not support a genocide, so when they hear translate activist claim through ridiculous mission interpretations of what she said, that that is what she supports, all you do is prove to those human beings who are reading about this, that the trans rights activist side, is toxic and not be taken literally, and that the other side is actually reasonable and something to listen to, all you do is give credence to the Hellen Joyce Helen staniland side, which is sensible as they are moderate decent centrist people. And in due course all moderate centrist decent liberals, will agree with their moderate sensible decent liberal positions, of opposing genocide, of being nice to trans people, but acknowledging that biological sex obvioudly exist and is very important when we have safeguarding rules for women. Really what it is, is that some people believe that biological sex is very important when looking at safeguarding rules between men and women, and who should be in women's sports and things like that. Some people believe that for the sake of ideological reasons, what some people called gender ideology, or trans rights activism, that we should ignore that. The problem with the trans rights activists, is that instead of understanding that there are two main political positions that you can look at and that we should come to some kind of intelligent compassionate compromise, not agreeing with their political position, memes that the person is evil beyond comprehension, so they desperately dream up all sorts of horrible terms names and beliefs and statements about, anybody who gives even the mildest criticism of their beliefs. Whether that is Richard Dawkins, the supreme Court judges, kemi badenoch, a world renowned children's author, Chapelle, etc, that is the problem you have when waiting into this debate from the rational gender critical side. That you will receive laughable toxic insults from very extreme out of touch with proper debating styles, extreme trans rights activists.
    3
  9. But don't the statistics indicate, the biological men whatever they identify as, don't change in terms of their safeguarding threat levels, purely because of what they identify as.
    3
  10. Read the books of Helen Joyce and you will have an understanding of the position of people from the gender critical side.
    3
  11. Because we don't have white people's toilets and black people's toilets, there is no point in having them in a post-racial society. Where as we do have women's toilets and we do have men's toilets, because most people see there's a good reason for having them out of them, is there a lot of men who are quite perverted. Ok site this wedding once there was this drunk man trying to get in the women's toilet all the time. And the woman were all telling him to f*** off, I mean he was a cis male, and well done the women, for stopping him, but that is a case in point, of why we have women's toilets and men's toilets. But the fact he was a threat was not because he was cis, it was because he was a biological male.
    3
  12. Most of her support is left of centre labour voters, who acknowledge biological sex exists. They don't hate trans people, they oppose bullying v them, but just believe in safeguarding rules between men and women, and believe what someone identifies as does not in every field negate the need for safeguarding rules. We should be nice to trans people, acknowledge biological sex exists and accept it is not far right to to say so. Single sex spaces are a historical sensible idea.😊
    2
  13. ​​​ @porphura4448 but there have been cases of abuse, and JK Rowling would say, 😊 a biological male who identifies as a woman, does not suddenly remove themselves from safeguarding concerns, biological meal is a biological male whether that biological male identifies as a woman or a man, identifying as a woman doesn't negate the safeguarding concerns. That is the JK Rowling View. Any more than saying you're from Swansea or Moscow or New Zealand would negate concerns. A biological male is still a biological male whatever they identify as. A a biological male is still a biological male, whether he identifies as a woman, whether he wears glasses, weather his favourite colour is green, Weber he enjoys folk music, he is still simply just a biological male.
    2
  14. ​ @zoeolsson5683 the amount of women who look really very much like men, is tiny. So it's just rude.
    2
  15. It won't be about societal expectations, even if a woman has short hair and wears men's clothes most people will not think they are biological meals. But if a biological meal walks into a toilet, with a big bushy beard, in certain instances this may be noted upon.
    2
  16. ​ @suzannehill9935 which is why jk rowling was concerned about biological males using women's safe spaces.
    2
  17. Anyway, thats all from me, good happiness to every person.
    2
  18. That is a dreadful thing to say. This is the aggressive tactic of trans rights activists to say the most horrible things they can about JK Rowling, the problem for your activist, is everybody knows what she said. She has never said the people of colour don't look female enough, she was referring to some specific athletes, where there has been controversy about. She was not saying it because of their colour or their race and that is obviously the case. As look at the fact she has been willing to criticise athletes, of all backgrounds, and ethnicities, on the biological women's sports issue. She has supported Riley Gaines over Lia Thomas. And many women of colour agree with the JK Rowling position, for instance wnba great Lisa Leslie, has expressed concern over the inclusion of biological males in women's sports. Rowling also criticized The White Italian paralompian who competed in the women's events. The way you have described us very unfair and offensive, and incredibly rude. She also has defended the greatest woman tennis player, Serena Williams from racist haters. Everybody who understands this topic knows that is not what she meant. So all that has to happen is reasonable people look at this topic and see how extreme and hysterical and unreasonable your side are, and they just can't listen to your arguments. And she does not engage in Holocaust denial. That is an atrocious thing to say. You are not helping your side by being so aggressive and unpleasant towards anybody who speaks out against aspect of your beliefs. You must learn to be more understanding. I know that is not possible, so this is why this announcement by the supreme Court, was not treated with the horror that you may have expected from a liberal middle class society, it is because your side have been so unreasonable to people who have made even the slightest objections to any element of your beliefs.
    2
  19. ​​​ @rosieo5875 give the quotations that prove what your mean spirited claims. And would you like it if people claimed you had said those things, would you like it if people claim that you said those terrible things about the Holocaust and people of colour, that you claim she said, if you had not. In reality many trans rights activists, launch misinformation and hate campaigns against any famous left wing person who criticises the claim trans women are women. Give the quotations to prove your terrible offensive libellous claims about JK Rowling. Where are they come on come on give them.
    2
  20. ​​​ @rosieo5875 you haven't reported anything that she has said. You have said a vial and horrible thing about her, I'm not giving it any credibility. This is the epitome of the pathetic childishness of extreme trans rights activism which I hope you should ditch. Anybody with any sense knows that she would never deny the Holocaust. The only reason why people are claiming that is because they hate her so much because she doesn't agree with their intellectually weak specific view on trans rights. So in their typical orwellian / childish manner, they think of the most horrible things you could say about somebody on the left, when clearly the things they are saying are utter rubbish, and if you searched hard you could make up rubbish about anybody if just because you disagree with them. And to be honest that is traditionally a far-right and centre right trick not a trick of the left. Because the left are about people coming together, not about hate and demonising. Please can these hateful nasty unpleasant people stop their horrible lies about JK Rowling.
    2
  21. Statement from J.K. Rowling, 14th March 2024 While I’m used to the gross distraction techniques used by the more extreme faction of trans activism, the claim that I am a holocaust denier is baseless and disgusting.
    2
  22. ​​​​​ @Tamos40000 You tell me, I have not written anything about fever dreams. Please elaborate. All that has happened, is there are a lot of people who don't like the fact, that she comes from a position, that states biological males and biological females remain that whatever they identify as. So as of that a lot of people want to get at her, as an example, they want to make that an opinion that is not allowed to be believed or stated. That's all that happened. And there will be people who will keep on grinding at her and grinding at her, but it doesn't stop the reality, more and more and more people have come to state the same thing, so it has been impossible to suppress the opinion she was being condemned for, no matter what horrible things people say about her. Why can't you just accept she has a different opinion to you, somebody having a different opinion to you does not make them beyond the pale. If anything you're doing a Barbra Streisand effect on her. When it would have been far more sensible to have said, you're entitled to your position, and I am entitled to my position, but we can still be friends.
    2
  23. ​​​​​​​​​​ @Tamos40000 I have just looked it up, and as far as I am aware, JK Rowling has never supported the burning of books. In fact if anything, it was the anti JK Rowling activists, who wanted to ban her books, and cancel her video game, even though it had a trans character. It has been the people against gender critical beliefs, who have been trying to ban and cancel, trying to ban Kathleen stock from speaking at Oxford, all sorts of things like that. I remember there was one book seller at Waterstons, who said that all a US female authors gender critical books should be burned, and they tried to cancel Chapelle, and get Rosie duffield expelled from labour. It certainly is not the JK Rowling side, that have been trying to censor and ban cancel. Remember that SnP, member of Parliament, Joanna cherry, she was banned from speaking at a comedy club because she had gender critical pro JK Rowling opinions,, it was not the gender critical people who have been the censors, it has been the trans activists who have been trying to ban people all along. It's like this, I may not agree with every tenet of communism, of of every one of its thinkers, but it does not mean I support burning their books like the Nazis did to communist books. I don't support every element of anti gender critical idealogy, but I don't support burning the books of anti gender critical authors. The comparison by your side is I feel a extreme and bitter campaign against gender critical people and their works, and you know, not capable of understanding that there's an alternative position to the anti gender critical side. It has pushed everybody away from you. In 2016 your side had popular support, but the constant kind of hyperbole from your side has pushed everybody away, so something that would never have been possible in 2016, the supreme court judgement has made a huge decision and there has been no popular opposition to it. This toxicity of this debate is awful. Why can't we just be nice to trans people, but acknowledge the position that biological sex exists is acceptable. Also there was a dance company founder, who was fired from the company she founded, for expressing mildly gender critical beliefs. There was a guy in the music industry, who experienced the same stuff, he was fired because of a campaign to get him fired for making vanilla remarks on puberty blockers, which to some extent of been supported by the cass report, a a Newcastle United fan, who happened to be a lesbian, was banned from the club, ironically owned by the famously not pro gay, kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as she made mildly vanilla gender critical remarks. Thete was an attempt to jail a woman in Norway, for not accepting preferred pronouns dependent on self identity. And the jailing of a teacher in Ireland for not adhering in every way to the new ideology. In fact your ideology is so extreme, that on some considerations you're not even allowed to mention biological woman, in a mild vanilla debate on trans rights,which is so largely new speak it's ridiculous.
    2
  24. ​​ @Tamos40000 I don't think she has denied that books were burned. To me the comment she is making, is it criticising a political position, is completely ok, and is not the same as burning the books of those people who have those beliefs. I don't agree with every Marxist philosopher in history, some people interpret a marxist leninist, as different to a maoist, I myself am more a traditional social democrat, who admires certain egalitarian beliefs of the left. But that does not mean I would ever support burning das capital, or the Little red book. I can disagree with somebody's political beliefs, but it does not automatically mean I support somebody burning their books. But the extreme trans right position, seems to believe that if you don't agree with every aspect of their beliefs, then that makes you exactly the same as somebody who is burning their books, which is completely unreasonable to think. I am sure they would have burned George Galloway's books, I would condemn that, I don't agree with everything he believes, but here somebody who disagrees with elements of trans rights fundamentalism. If a Nazi burned one of George Galloway's books, the fact that a trans rights activist, disagrees with the position of George Galloway on this issue, does not make that trans rights actiivist, a Holocaust denier. The same goes here, the fact I don't agree with every aspect of trans rights ideology, does not mean I support burning the books of people who do support it, and it is absolutely the case, disagreeing with aspects of trans rights idealogy, does not make someone a Holocaust denier. Your form of shoehorning in that claim, is is literally beyond belief.
    2
  25. ​​ @Tamos40000 your sides orwellian campaign to cancel and ban people, and misinterpret them on a horrendous scale for expressing gender critical views, is the epitome of toxic.
    2
  26. ​ @Tamos40000 but your claim seems to be saying, that if you don't agree with someone's political beliefs, that that is exactly the same as burning their books. Therefore if you don't agree with them, then your denying the Holocaust, but only in the insultingly litoral sense, that Holocaust, means fire. No I disagree with your political beliefs, but I don't support burning the books of your political opinions, and in the context of the Holocaust, the Holocaust refers to the murder of 6 million Jews and many other minorities. As someone of sonne gypsy heritage myself, I feel it is quite sick and quite disturbing to pretend that burning a book equates to the same as killing a human being. I don't support burning books but burning books is not the same as murdering millions of people. It's absolutely disgraceful to put them in the same pedestal. I condemn the burning of books, as I would assume jk Rowling does, but that is a whole different level to the Holocaust killing people. JK Rowling should be suing these people, and actually the anti-defamation organisation should be suing them as well for comparing the burning of books to The killing of millions of Jews. JK Rowling should sue them for claiming she supports burning books, and the anti defamation league should be suing them for equating burning books, to killing people. And the biggest irony of all, is it is the trans rights actiivists who have been doing the cancelling and some of even talked about burning the books of gender critical people.
    2
  27. ​​​​​​​​​​ @Tamos40000 the truth is extreme trans rights activists don't like JK Rowling, because she doesn't agree with the idea of declaring biological woman, a subset of woman, and renaming them chest feeders, or some other unpleasant dehumanising term like that. As shown by the fact, Graham Linehan is banned from British comedy for his gender critical stance, but jimmy carr, made a joke which many said glorified the murder of gypsies in the Holocaust, but he gets to present shows, with the same comedians who refuse to work with Graham Linehan just for saying biological sex exists. And PS I would not want to be friends with somebody as unpleasant, desperate to find reasons to dislike someone, and rude at you anyway. But gender critical people and people of all stripes, should still try and be friends and friendly with, people who happen to be trans etc. but we should be nice to trans people and also accept biological sex exist. And I don't agree with discriminating against people for being trans, nobody should be fired for being trans or harassed for being trans. But I do understand that there are complex debates and nuances which recognise clearly biological sex exists, it is a glaringly obvious fact, and it is not bigoted for biological woman to to haveam safeguarding rules about biological males, and in many cases that is about their sex not their gender identity, as it is the sex the biological sex which is the thing that creates the concern. So it is a reasonable debate, and we should lower the toxicity, and accept there are concerns which biological women women have which we should listen to and understand clearly. 😊
    2
  28. ​​​​​​​​ @Tamos40000 she's not denying they burning of the bookd, she is denying that criticising elements of trans rights ideology, is the same as burning books on trans rights idealogy. And even if she had denied the burning of those books, it would not be the the same as denying the killing of 6 million Jews or, gypsies, and as . myself , as somebody with gypsy heritage, I myself see the difference between burning groups of people like myself, and burning a book which is just made of paper, as completely different things, and I am offended that you are comparing burning books to killing human beings. Please apologise to me, for comparing burning pieces of paper, to the Holocaust , which was about killing people of my ethnicity. And unlike those trans activists about GC books, she does not support the burning of books. You should admit that your claims are monsterous, and the insult to the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, and the 250,000 gypsies off my ethnicity, who were murdered by the Nazis. You should be ashamed of your disgusting miss interpretations, and it shows how the dreadfully toxic your campaigns are. And anybody who knows anything about the subject of what she said and what your claiming, knows that what you are doing is disgraceful. Shame on you for trying to equate not agreeing with every tenet of trans rights positions ideology, with the murder of 6 million Jews, shame on you, you should be very ashamed.
    2
  29. ​​​​ @Tamos40000 you did not provide proof, you provided proof that she were shocked, that somebody would claim that criticising elements of trans rights idealogy, is the same as burning books on the subject. And they are not the same. Then you claimed that if she had done that it would be effectively Holocaust denial, and I as a person who has a member of an ethnicity that was killed in the Holocaust, find it incredibly offensive for you to compare burning a piece of paper to killing human beings. This just shows that trans rights extremism, is a hateful idealogy, that tries to think of the most hurtful and hateful things it can about people who disagree with it. It is an extremist ideology, as it represents anybody who disagrees with it as beyond the pale. That is not true about gender critical people, Isaiah prepared to debate with their opponents on the issues, rather than dehumanize the people who are putting forward the opposing political views. Your brand of trans rights activism is clearly a unpleasant aggressive attacking viewpoint, that is not compatible with democratic debate of understanding of other people's views and beliefs. You have chosen to dismiss other people, and think of the most offensive things you can about people of different opinions. This is more like a kind of a Russian nationalist tactic of attacking with hate filled extremism anybody who disagrees with you. You haven't provided any real evidence of your claim, and you should be ashamed of your disgraceful attacking of a person who hasn't said what you claim they say, as far as the evidence you indicate. And considering all the evil people that are in the world who you could malign and condemn, all the dictators and kings of dictatorships. It speaks volumes about you that you have decided to attack a beloved children's author, and horribly misrepresent a tweet that you have seen. And the fact you haven't apologised to me a person of Gypsy ethnicity, for your claims, also speaks volumes. Shame on you.
    2
  30. ​​​ @Tamos40000 thinking about it again, even though I don't agree that she was denying that specific books were burned during the Nazi regime.I don't think that most people consider the burning of any book, as really a car part of the Holocaust, the Holocaust describes The killing of 6 million Jews, 250000 gypsies and many other minorities, when people talk about the horrors of the Holocaust they are not talking about the Nazi book burnings. It's not a technicality, a human life is more significant even than the most valuable book in history. So for you to be calling her a Holocaust denier, over the burning of a book, a claim about her you haven't provided evidence for in my view, is just a symbol of the hatefulness of a lot of trans rights campaigners, of wanting to think of the most horrible hateful thing they can think of about people who disagree with their opinions. The Nazi book burnings were a Nazi book burning, that is a different thing to killing lots of human beings, you should be able to recognise the difference between the Nazis killing a human being which was a horrible horrible horrible thing for them to have done, and the Nazis burning books which was terrible, but not comparible to killing people, that's not a technicality, the Nazis killing a person is different to the Nazis the burning a book. You should be able to see the difference.
    2
  31. ​​​​​​ @Tamos40000 you have not provided clear evidence that she did deny that. And even if she did say that, which you have not provided evidence for, that is not what your side claims. Your side claimed that she has a Holocaust denier, I have seen that stated on Wikipedia articles from around the world. When she clearly is not a Holocaust denier. Your side are making horrible horrible horrible ghastly claims about her, because you can't defeat her on the main point, but she doesn't agree with your categorisation that biological males who identify as women get classed with biological woman. So because she doesn't agree with that, trans rights activists say the most horrible horrible horrible things about her, and then absurdly don't see these horrible things, about people with power like Putin, or kings of Arab countries, who are doing fireworks things to LGBT people. Shame on your people's terrible lies about her. You have also used weasel words, to not deny, the ghastly horrible vial claims about her. You have not denied those vile claims about her, which is typical of trans rights extremism, which all too often is a woman hating macho uncaring offensive ideology, that attacks it's critics in the most horrendous cowardly ways they can think of. You should be ashamed that you have not condemned the vial criticisms of her, you have pushed all decent thinking people away from your agenda, and USA and Britain are right, to look away from your activism. And I don't think any sensible person, regards every single thing the Nazis did as the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a specific and horrific event, find it undermines it's status if JK Rowling, you put burning a pile of books, in with the horrific murder of millions of people including my ethnicity, shame on you.
    2
  32. ​ @MeatloafProductionz Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston agree with GC views.
    2
  33. ​ @3ndw but this is a real woman's issue. Just imagine you were a woman who had to sharea cell with that intact biological male, there was the fuss about, well she defended those women, some of the most marginalized in society from a danger, so she does defend women in danger.
    2
  34. That's nice to know
    2
  35. But don't we then get statements like the Bryson case, where she r@ped her with her p@nis, surely there are times we must be nice to everybody, including trans people, but also acknowledge the reality that biological sex exists. Just like they might be cases where you have to admit someone is too short to go on the roller coaster or reach the bookshelf. It's a fact that make annoy some shorter people in some cases to mention, but as long as you keep it to the right places, then we can be a nice tolerant society. But it must be legal to acknowledge the reality that biological sex exist. And surely if you are discussing national policy, it is completely unreasonable, to ignore such loudly important concern in the matter. Yes let's be tolerant, reality that biological sex exists, indeed it's a major matter for both sides of the argument in some senses.
    2
  36. ​ @assses-3216 but surely we have the term masculine, because there are biological males, it is not a term that cropped out of thin air. And the statistics indicate that biological males are more aggressive whatever they identify as. As shown by the trans debate, where the trans rights side is much more about labeling opponents dehumanizing terms like bigot, or terf, and the gender critical side is more about talking.
    2
  37. In terms of sports, it's the other way round, there was a mma fighter who identified as a woman, but was born a man, and broke skull of a biological woman, and calls people terfs. Joe Rogan mentions it a lot. Also in terms of the first one, well in USA prisons there have been those things occurring, which could not even have remotely occurred if the policy did not allow biological males in women's prisons. For the Mma Fallon fox was the name, and the individual boasted about beating up terfs, which was horrible and indicative of the dangers from tra. The statistics indicate, the biological males whatever they identify as are still a threat to women.
    2
  38. So should heavy weights fight feather weights.
    2
  39. Well how come I have a pretty much 100% accuracy, level, able to identify which tennis player is in the women's event and which is in the men's event.
    2
  40. ​​ @MeatloafProductionz s You are ignoring the main point. The idealogy of self id, believed that gender identity is so important, that it is hateful, far right, bigoted, transphobic, uncompassionate, conservative, n🤐zi, f@asiust and cruel to not put intact biological males convicted of r🤐pes who identify as women, in women's prison cells. Luckily jk Rowling heroically stopped that, kudos to her. Now maybe you have a non empathetic, gender identity ism, view, which ignores the lives of people over a idealogical desire to support gender identity, but thankfully the people in charge don't agree with such a uncaring view. Well done Keir Stamer and the conservative for accepting sense....
    2
  41. That is just the kind of toxic comment that is not needed. If you are arguing for trans rights. You should learn to argue in a more understanding and tolerant way of other people's opinions, just saying these things about anybody who doesn't agree with you doesn't bring people along with you, it pushes people away. I say we should be nice to trans people, but also accept the worries and concerns that many biological woman have about these situations, I'm not in a patronising mansplaining way, what's an understanding way that accepts their fears and concerns.
    2
  42. Boxing is not about people dying, don't be so heartless.
    2
  43. ​ @mrvenom88 sounds like something Ivan drago would say. Appalling.
    2
  44. ​ @mrvenom88 no, I am saying it is callous to brush off any danger of deaths occurring. And for effect, I am saying Ivan drago was callous about a death in boxing, which was a attempt by the writers to say he was the baddie in the movie.
    2
  45. ​​ @mrvenom88 yes, that's kind of like the quote in Rocky, by the Russian guy about Rocky's mentor. And Rocky is sad.
    2
  46. ​ @candidbowyer4625 I did hear about it, it reminds me of the boxing death we saw on television, when we were young, which was terrible. People talk a lot about compassion in this debate, please be compassionate about everybody, we should care about trans people and we should care about non trans people, including women boxers, please be truly compassionate, rather the letting ideology be more important than safety concerns. Too often the trans rights campaigners talk a lot about compassion, but completely ignore it in safeguarding.
    2
  47. ​ @candidbowyer4625 yes I did hear about it, do you have any compassion for that boxer or women boxers, most of us think it is terrible if a tragedy like that occurs in boxing.
    2
  48. ​​ @candidbowyer4625 what happened to the compassion the celebs who claim they support your side say they have. Show compassion to the boxers. Their lives also matter. Think of the pain and hurt caused by these deaths, you should have compassion for everybody, and clearly the hatefulness and individualism of trans right activism, is a turn off.
    2
  49. ​​ @N6TH9N John Oliver explained English football by claiming the fourth division is amateur, despite it being way above the average wage, although he is a witty cool guy, on some issues he can not be bothered presenting the case of both sides, clearly his show ion this issue is just a party political broadcast for one position, he has not really understood the position of those who have the view of common sense. Sadly.
    2
  50. ​But he clearly presents a angle, and just proceeds to put all the things, and views which support his view. Then he presens the alternative view from some daft perspective, often interviewing someone representing that side, who is not a expert. Criticising sone beside the point comments they make, and acting like his conclusion is the Moses on the mountain moment. Yes it's ok to do that on stuff I agree with him on, but it gives you a new perspective when you know he is wrong, and on this issue he is clearly wrong. I love these top us comic shows, but in reality, we should not act like they are unbiased investigate reports, they are comics pushing a view from one side. It's fun when I agree, like Colbert mocking trump, but when you realise they are wrong, like on this issue, , it's bad.. ​ @N6TH9N 
    2
  51. ​ @N6TH9N also I don't like it how he pretend to be a wimp for comic effect, when he is not.
    2
  52. ​ @N6TH9N it's a pop up, simplified view of the subject from one angle. That's ok, but it's annoying when he does it for the view you don't support. He is a great comic though, and has interesting stuff, though one sided.
    2
  53. ​​ @N6TH9N It certainly is not compassionate to call opponents bigots, and hateful, to malign and label them and try to cancel those as trans rights activists do about those who speak up on this subject. It was not compassionate to ignore the concerns of female athletes, to have their medals and records taken by people who it was perfectly fair to question the legitimacy of were taking part. There were even threats to expel female athletes from college for criticising the idea that biological males, who already have a richer more watched sport, competing in women's sports. Clearly he gave just a one sided orwellian view of the argument. Watch interviews with Riley Gaines and you will see what she had to deal with. When some female athletes in US college system, stated that they did not make the idea of intact biological males and dressing in their, dressing rooms, instead of thinking about the logic of this, realising that this could be intimidating to a large number of women, the ridiculous college elite decided that they should be seeking counseling, there was no attempt to compassion and decency towards these women, indeed just like happened to JK Rowling Catherine stock and Helen Joyce, these women were treated like the unimportant proles, underlined by how when Riley games finished an equal position with Leah Thomas in time, they gave the award to Leah Thomas, just like how the second Caitlyn Jenner announced they were a woman, they were given the award of women of the year, as if there were no biological woman who had done anything that year. And the arrogant macho nature of trans rights activists, calling people the most horrible names, dismissing them in dehumanising manners, as underlined by the one-sided nature of the John Oliver show. In Britain we have a show called The One show, his soul could be called the one-sided show.
    2
  54. ​ @mrhobsonschoice she is not backed by Putin, dont be ridiculous. She is a beloved children's author, who has won polls across the world on her popularity. Edinburgh and London for the past couple of decades have revealed in the cash she brings their tourist industry. Both Keir stamer and kemi badenoch refuse to criticize her. Her views are that of a left leaning sensible social democrat. The only thing she digressed from late 2010s political thought on, was the trans issue, and for that, she was smeared on mass by a orwellian hate campaign. If she had been a nobody, it would have worked. But people knew who she is, and knew she is not far right. So if anything the bullying attempts to cancel her, just gave her strength, like a star trek creature, growing from the Lazer beans the enterprise fired at it. JK Rowling is a passionate defender of women's rights, and the ludicrous attempt to frame her as anything other than that has failed.
    1
  55. ​​ @someonesomeone25 in most respects we live in a post-racial society, not many people I know would like there to be white people's things and black people things. Whereas we still as a society believe in women's safeguarding , and that makes a whole lot of sense, when you think about the fact of the relations between men and women. So the two things are completely different.
    1
  56. I don't pay much credence to the John Oliver side, as he is still one sided on this topic. He wants cleaned the puberty blockers can be reversed, which sounds like how on Earth could that possibly be true and it's a complicated thing is puberty. And in terms of sports, biological males have records better than the biological woman.
    1
  57. ​ @porphura4448 why are you wasting energy on it and thinking about it if it is so not important.
    1
  58. Surely we should be more tolerant of her fears you know, if a woman felt threatened by me, I would feel awful I would feel unhappy, I wouldn't call her a bigot, I would try to understand why she feels my behaviour or the way I am threatens her. That's right one of the things I do, is I never walk down an alleyway after a woman has gone down it. There is loads of behaviour we as men do, so we don't make women feel uncomfortable. Part of tolerance is also respecting, the fears and rights of women in our society, it's not bigoted to understand those fears, we should be nice to trans people, just because he has a perfectly understandable fear of men, because I've seen many situations where there was proved to be quite a sensible fear. Like a few days ago I saw these biological males in their thirties saying rude things about women on the train, and I saw one of the women just moved to another carriage, she was a being her instinct which was to be quite fearful of those biological males, and by the look on her face, it was quite a strong fear. And in reality she was the best person to protect herself her fear and her instinct, was the best form of protection. With it never call women bigots, for listening to their instincts, because in reality of biological males, just these guys showed, don't have the same spidey senses that the average biological woman has.
    1
  59. ​ @assses-3216 give a example of where she behaved as you say. My interpretation was that she was chosen as an example, so that everybody would feel threatened, to be afraid of agreeing with her opinions. In reality the attempt to cancel her, was a terrible choice and interesting emboldened herself and people who agreed with her. Can you give me an example of where the acted in the way you say, and also why should JK Rowling not block anybody she feels like, she can block whoever she wants, just like you can say I'm not going to talk to this person or that person. She was the one being misrepresented, I remember countless times people would say what did she say that was so terrible, and nobody would be able to give a quotation of what she actually said.
    1
  60. Ghosts
    1
  61. That's not fair, she is clearly left wing. She has traditionally backed labour, and remain. She backed the Iranian women protestors, and opposez trump. She even weighed in on Scottish independence , which I think upset some people, which I think was silly for such a proudly civil movement. It is not the same, to have segregation in terms of race for toilets, for to have separate bathrooms for men and women. There is no sensible safeguarding reason to have separate toilets for white and black people. But it is sensible to have different public toilets for men and women, for all sorts of safeguarding reasons. Maybe there is a argument for unisex in some situations, but not all. Also she does but demand people conform to certain womenhood looks. She like most gender critical people believe a woman can be short, or tall, a secretary or anything, even in the army, but just by having short hair or doing a macho job it does not make you a different gender. Like her famous quote, dress how they like, call themselves what they like, and then she said, a person born a biological male,is still man whether they wear a three piece suit or a flowery 👗 dress. So no, she does not believe in gender stereotypes, I mean she even had a male pen name, and has female characters like Hermione be the heroes. Also the debate she had about the boxers was a complex topic as Richard Dawkins talks.
    1
  62. A woman from the Commonwealth of Independent states.
    1
  63. My last comment here, but if that is so, what's the problem with biological males l to identify as women using men's toilets. If there is no problem we could just carry on as the law here say.
    1
  64. ​​ @RobThomson-x8g you mean the people who did nothing about it, as they were concerned about their own hides. Like a person in the comment section here, who did nothing about it. Where was society.
    1
  65. ​​ @RobThomson-x8g that is exactly why this happened, as the people in society who should have protected those people, did not want to act to protect those children. Just like happened in the Jimmy Saville case. Thank the Lord we had people like JK Rowling and Helen Joyce noticing the potential and actual abused from self id, stamping out it's most extreme elements, if it were not for heroes like JK rowling, campaigning despite orwellian hate campaigns v them, against intact biological males, convicted of the worst crimes against women being put in women's prison cells, then that horrific dystopian act would have still been occurring. These two ladies made sacrifices against a idealogy of great power, if only the people who knew what was going on in Rochdale, but did nothing about it, who then try and blame everyone else for it, had jk rowlings sense of moral goodness. She deserves a nobel prize.
    1
  66. ​ @erroreliminator2.076 neanderthals knew what a woman is, and modern homosapiens.
    1
  67. But people like JK Rowling don't feel there is a difference between biological males who identify as men, and biological males who identify as women, they often talk of statistics, that indicate and show that there is some foundation to their belief there, that male aggression is biologicals. Indeed in Scotland, one of my relatives friends, was r@ped by the trans butcher, so it's hardly like they are never a threat.
    1
  68. But surely it's just about accepting biological sex exists, we should be nice to trans people, but we should not ignore the glaring reality that biological gender exists.
    1
  69. No sane person denied that. The question is the categorization of biological males who identify as women. They are still human beings whether you think they need be defined in the man or woman categories.
    1
  70. Nobody denies the trans people are human beings, the debate is purely about whether you categorise trans people according to their biological sex, what about the gender they wish to be seen as. But it does not stop them being human beings whatever position you have of which group they should be categorised in, whether that would be man or woman.
    1
  71. Are you saying people who are not trans are not human beings, are they all human beans.
    1
  72. And Alistair Campbell statement, about the horrible fear he has, and well done him for saying he has this fear, that biological males who identify as women, trans women, may be beaten up in men's toilets. Well surely that is admitting that men are more aggressive than women. Why is it a flat out statement that biological males identify as women shouldn't be in men's toilets because men are so aggressive, where is it ok then to put certain biological males in women's toilets, is there a fear then biological woman could be beaten up by these biological males, who identify as women. The stats as far as I am aware, don't indicate that biological males who identify as women become women in every way, the criminal statistics indicate that trans women are closer to what you would call cis men in many crime statistics, than to cis wome. It doesn't change because they identify as a different gender. If you perceive yourself to be a different gender, you are still likely to have statistically the same threats and danger towards women as if you identified as what you were observed at birth as. That's not me being hateful, that's just an observed reality. We should be tolerant and kind to trans people, but just to ignore the fears of those women, to me just seems to be kind of I don't get it, surely you can genuinely tolerant and understanding towards the fears of those women. I don't understand this kind of just ignoring those fears.
    1
  73. People like JK Rowling, believe that a biological male who has gone through all these procedures, and some of whom are trans but have not gone through these procedures, are still biological males. And there is a case for believing that belief. They believe that male aggression is still male aggression whether that male identifies as a woman or identified as a man, when you understand it from that point of view you become more tolerant of their concerns. We should be nice to trans people but also understand the fears of these women who have these perfectly understandable evolutionarily created fears.
    1
  74. Most people who believe biological sex exists, absolutely accept that there are people who are trans who want to identify as the opposite gender, that is just a reasonable debate about how this affects other things. We should be nice to trans people, but we can still debate the nuances of how a society functions where we know that biological males pose, safeguarding threats to biological females,
    1
  75. Just stop using the terrible toxic language.
    1
  76. ​ @calumlambert is there really such a thing as a female brain and a male brain. Surely if there is, why do stats for trans women on many things, have a closer comparison to biological males than to biological females. Surely all it is, is some biological males perceived themselves to be women, and yes some will have more feminine traits than most other biological males, but equally some biological males who perceive they are women, actually have much less feminity than that. As shown by the trans rights protests a week ago, where many were holding aggressive banners with dehumanizing threatening terms towards what they dismissively call terfs. I am not sure from my experiences that the fact someone perceived themselves to be the gender of the opposite sex, makes them have a women's brain, because in my experience they usually seem more masculine in persona before transition than feminine, and a lot of stats involving male female safeguarding indicate that as well.
    1
  77. Most people just spend their time discussing the exact tactical position of a specific player in the premiership football match, I mean I like football, but this is a better more important interest, the many of the things people use their time on.
    1
  78. ​​ @candidbowyer4625 but that would result in horrific life ending injuries for the feather weights, that would be horrible beyond belief. It is a good thing we have good people protecting the weak from the bullies and strong.
    1
  79. 😂😂
    1
  80. ​ @MrRailjunkie that is unfair and toxic to say. The truth is gender critical people think we should be Nice to trans people, but acknowledge biological sex exists. It is highly toxic to call people bigots and fascist just as they don't absolutely agree with your line. It is not fascist to like Robert Winston, accept biological sex exists.
    1
  81. ​​​​​​​ @mrvenom88 but surely every death is a tragedy, we should not be excusing horrible events on the altar of ultra individualusm. For a group who claims trans people are marginalized, and go on about suicides, and all that, your side seem as callous as the Russian guy in Rocky, but it is a very aggressive macho unpleasant movement. Which is why it lost, and good thing that it lost so massively also.
    1
  82. ​ @mrvenom88 that is a typical toxic trans rights view. Not caring about the lives of boxers, in a way reminiscent of the baddy in the rocky movies, as what matters more is a religious style obsession of supporting gender identity over biological reality. it's why most people see self id idealogy as uncaring and unpersuasive.
    1
  83. ​ @EmmaLaBunn We do have a society that has safeguarding rules, and rightfully so. We are a post-racial society, so rightly we do not have Asian people's toilets, black people's toilets, and white people's toilets. But we do it set the importance of biological sex gender in human relationships. Should we have toilets for women and toilets for men. We could decide that we don't but we do because of safeguarding rules. Biological sex is something with regarded as important, and no wonder when you see the statistics of threats of men towards women, but rightly we do not see your race background as important in that regards. The intelligent centrist position, is to accept biological sex exists.
    1
  84. ​ @deathmetalmusicals6759 I am not saying anything like that, it's not for me to decide the law on who uses women's toilets. Just like I would never dare criticise a woman for saying biological sex exists. But there was an attempt to cancel her and she was fired from university for her opinions. The attempt to stifle her and censor her may have failed, but only because she stood up to the oppression. As I say it is not for me to decide the law, on who uses women's toilets.
    1
  85. ​​​ @N6TH9N John Oliver is an embarrassment on this issue, he once said puberty blockers are reversible, and did it in his typical aggressive shouting manner, when how could that even possibly be true, it makes no sense whatsoever. Once he claimed on the Stephen Colbert show that the English fourth division is a amateur league, when they are paid five times the average wage, just as he could not be bothered explaining the facts, and he is always acting like if he were a wimpy coward, when talking about himself in self depreciating ways, when he would be nowhere near where he is if that were true. For some unknown reason him and John Stewart have decided to support trans women in women's sports, and to me bring the English fourth division is amateur, for the sake of a argument, style logic to this debate. No matter how loud John Oliver shouts at the top of his voice, this year's at the end of his tether, that biological males have no advantage over biological women in sports, even though the male record is ahead of the female record in every sport I know of, it does not make it so, and injecting the biological males with chemicals to make them specifically weaker, at a specific rate to make them just less muscular enough to compete with less muscular women, I mean that's just like using drugs to compete really. And in all honesty anyway, if you were born a biological male, you are on average for a little bit taller than if you had been born a biological female, so even from the app that you're getting the advantage of being born a biological male, so that's an unfair advantage in sport over people who had been born biological females. If you had a 6-ft man who then competed as a 6-ft woman, if he had been born a woman then on average he would have been 5 ft 8, so he has the advantage of being taller, then a 5 foot 10 woman. When is he had been born a woman he would have been shorter. And there would likely be over advantages as well. When is people are so desperate for biological males to be competing in women's sports, when there is already a biological male section to compete in, well why don't these people campaigning for that, just concentrate on some more important thing like ending wars and curing poverty. And they can leave the rest of us have biological men's sports for biological men and biological woman sports for biological woman.
    1
  86. Good thinking, Stamer is great
    1
  87. Is it's so unimportant, don't talk about it then.
    1