Youtube comments of Lewis Smith (@lewissmith350).

  1. 142
  2. 46
  3. 36
  4. 29
  5. 28
  6. 13
  7. 12
  8. 10
  9. 9
  10. 9
  11. 8
  12. 8
  13. 8
  14. 7
  15. 7
  16. 7
  17. 7
  18. 7
  19. 7
  20. 7
  21. 6
  22. 6
  23. 6
  24. 6
  25. 6
  26. 5
  27. 5
  28. 5
  29. 5
  30. 5
  31. 5
  32. 5
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 4
  39. 4
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 4
  70. 4
  71. 4
  72. 4
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. Did you do anything about the Rochdale girls, what a cheek to complain about people who live nowhere near Rochdale, not doing anything about something they did not know was happening. There are plenty enough men in Rochdale of all races, who could have noticed these things going on, and done something about it, look at the facts, women who are fifty percent of society, were seen as less important than less than o.5 percent of men, in the trans bathroom and sports debate, if they are that powerless, and need to be this loud to be heard, and make this much clamour, how much would they have been ignored regarding Rochdale. And don't pretend they were afraid of being seen as racist, as there are plenty of men in Rochdale who don't care what anybody thinks about them, who like Jimmy carr, Nigel farage, pubs, alcohol, and trump, what did they do, nothing, don't blame middle class liberals for something that they could not have even known about,. Remember the things said by male police during the Yorkshire ripper, case, claiming certain women did not matter, laughing at their problems when they were victims. Dont you dare blame nice kind relatively powerless middle class women for the men and powerful of Rochdale failing in this situation. You did not do anything about it, Jack, and you are a man, why did you do nothing about the horrible events in Rochdale, and also you did not protect t women in the trans bathroom debate, and you did nothing about Jimmy Saville. Ps I am not blaming all Rochdale men, but what on earth were all these people doing, while it was going on, social services and the police dont have that much power, what were the locals doing. What was general society up to. Don't they have any morals, or social cohesion, and don't blame middle class women for that , as you can bet your bottom dollar Helen Joyce and sal Glover would have cared, it's the locals, who don't care what happens to people who were to blame, and that's people who are not concerned about the problems regarding extreme trans rights activists, and people who abuse Rochdale kids. I mean a society that puts the rights of tickle above sal, is one where we need men to act and protect women.
    3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 3
  96. 3
  97. 3
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. ​​​ @bencutting146 but in that case, if inequality and all this, are such big problems. Why are there people focusing on trying to put biological males in women's sports when they could be focusing on inequality and all the terrible things in the world. Like you you could have gone on a profile on YouTube comments and gone on about encouraging equality and encouraging socialism and encouraging,. Peace. There are 500000 homeless people in the USA, have you any time why have you got any time to write comments criticising those standing up for women's rights, and just stating the reality that biological sex exists it just does it's just a glaring reality, when you could have spent all that time arguing against homelessness in favour of better taxes on the rich for the poor. You could have been arguing for stronger links with Europe to increase our economy. Instead instead of something useful like that you're going on this comment section going on about a tiny unimportant issue that that affects hardly anybody, and all for the idealogical mantras that really few supports and fewer really believes in, wouldn't it be better if you just let people you know defeat the kind of trans extremist argument, and then just argue against homelessness and aren't you against war and argue against hate and argue against racism you know wouldn't it be better to do something more useful. And if you comment on this then I will realise that really your main interest is this issue, and really you're just interested in opposing gender critical beliefs such as belief that biological sex is important or belief that biological woman rights are important you know. Just don't comment on this just go on somewhere and argue against homelessness or are you against health inequality do that do something useful. Like in Scotland the Green party were elected on a manifesto of supporting the environment, and when the Scottish government said oh no we're not going to do this recycling bottle scheme, they said that's ok we'll stay in the government when really that was the thing they should have left the government about, but when it when the Scottish government said we're not going to have have puberty blockers in such a way anymore because of the cass report, they left the government not because of environmental issues not because of social issues not because of economic issues but because of something which really they had no idea about their not experts on puberty blockers they don't know anything about the subject they left the government over something that's nothing to do with the environment. Really the people that are unfair and jaded on this, are the trans rates extremists who are willing to leave government's lose elections,Ike happened to Kamala on this issue, but don't actually stand up for Peace don't stand up for a tax rates on the Ritz they don't stand up for social services they don't stand up for public services. They bully JK Rowling and they bully innocent women who are just saying they don't want biological males in women's sport. If the trans rights extremists who hate JK Rowling, and hate innocent biological female athletes who are just saying they don't want biological meals in women's sports had spent all that time focusing on on opposing homelessness, then they would have done something far more use. So hey I'm going to continue saying the truth the biological sex exists it does does it's a glaring reality and if anybody says otherwise I'm still going to disagree with them, I'm still going to say I think in reality women should be entitled to say you know there's such a thing as a man and such a thing as a woman because affects their safety and safeguarding, I am going to say trans people deserve respect, and nobody should bully them, or call them mean names, but also I'm going to argue for a socialism and equality and liberalism and freedom, but I don't think it's fair for you to claim that pretending biological woman and biological male don't exist is some kind of left wing idea because it isn't, what we should do if we should love trance people have part of our society they are as much part of our society as anybody else and I oppose any bullying against them but I do also believe that we should have a society where we accept biological woman and biological man exist and we should have laws that are new and accept that but we can also also have socialism and equality and freedom and liberalism.
    3
  113. 3
  114. 3
  115. 3
  116. 3
  117. NoBut why do folk like Caitlyn Jenner, and Eddie izzard, who identified as trans but were born biological male, behave more like the stereotype of a quite macho man, specially before they transitioned, remember Caitlin jenner after transitioning threatening ben Shapiro in a debate, hardly a dainty feminine act. And Izzard was always running marathons, and dominating panel shows with a strong persona. Great person,, but what about their behaviour indicates they are more feminine than most men, which surely would occur, if there was such a thing as female brains. If men are from Mars and women from Venus as the book claims in a joke, what about them seems venusian. And both are still attracted to women, I mean can you tell me, in what ways they behave like a typical woman. And the typical extreme trans rights activist often is a biological male, arguing and debating like a aggressive domineering biological male debates, indeed often in a more mansplaining way, than most cis males. Please explain how that is so. Please inform me, as I love to learn. So as of that I think the gender critical idea makes sense, that biological sex exists, there is much variation in personality, sexuality etc in each gender, there are tougher men weaker men, homosexuals and heterosexuals and all sorts, and even biological males who identify as women, but that does not stop biological sex existing, and vice versa for women, females, and heterosexuals and homosexuals are as normal as eachother, but it does not stop sex existence.
    3
  118. 3
  119. 3
  120. 3
  121. 3
  122. 3
  123. 3
  124. 3
  125. 3
  126. 3
  127. 3
  128. 3
  129. 3
  130. 3
  131. 3
  132. 3
  133. 3
  134. 3
  135. 3
  136. 3
  137. 3
  138. 3
  139. 3
  140. 3
  141. 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
  142. 3
  143. 3
  144. 3
  145. 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
  146. 3
  147. 3
  148. 3
  149. 3
  150. 3
  151. 3
  152. 3
  153. 3
  154. 3
  155. 3
  156. 3
  157. 3
  158. 3
  159. 3
  160. 😢Listen well my kin, reality does not yield to wishes, nor does truth bend to the tides of opinion, biological sex exists, it is not a shadow not a fleeting Notion, but an enduring fact of life, male and female are not identities plucked from the air, they are the result of millenia of adapting written into a very being guiding the essence of Life itself. But now my brothers and sisters we see an alarming tale and folding. The words of women biological woman who speak with courage and clarity are being met not with dialogue but with venom they are called hateful for daring to speak the truth they are branded with vile names accused of cruelty when all they seek his fairness and protecting for themselves and their daughters so we stand by their voices are drowned out. What madness has gripped this land when the safety of women in space is meant for them their shelters their sports their private places is considered expendable in the name of a distorted ideology. Compassion does not mean ignoring reality kindness does not mean ignoring reality..to call this truth hateful if to deny reason itself even have saved us all yes but biology is not a trivial detail women's rights have been hard one fought with blood sweat and tears and we dishonor their struggles by turning away their concerns protecting the rates and dignity of women is not an attack on anyone it is an act of Justice. We must not be cowed by the search of those who demand complaints at the cost of reason to stand for truth is not cruelty to protect the rights of women is not hatred it is strength it is fairness and it is a very foundation of the society that values both reality and kindness we must support Richard Dawkins JK Rowling Graham Lincoln and all the others.😮
    3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 3
  165. 3
  166. 3
  167. 3
  168. 3
  169. 3
  170. 3
  171. 3
  172. 3
  173. 3
  174. 3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. ​​ @jackspring7709 I have not said anything anti any men. I have bigged up Bronson, and Wayne, two role models for most men, and said men should protect women, which most would be proud to do. What did you do to protect the Rochdale victims other than blame a beautiful community minded Australian woman, who has likely never been there, and likely would support any society effort to root out the individuals who did those abuses. The fact you go on here and try and blame a stunningly beautiful Australian woman, of so little power, she was ordered to pay a fine for not adhering in every way to ultra woke values, shows you are hardly a well focused campaigner. I would guess you are just a malcontent firing abuse at random people over a issue you have not done much about. Correct me if I am wrong. Bring to my attention anything you have done it achieved in connection to the Rochdale abuses, give me evidence you achieved something in opposing that. Give me proof it was you personally who achieved those things. What did you do, to stop the abuses, all you seem to have done is blame a beautiful Australian woman, someone on the other side of the world. She has done something to beat silly ideas, in standing up to orwellian idealogy, what have you done in terms of Rochdale, if you don't give evidence I think we can assume nothing, except blaming a attractive Aussie, who nobody in their right mind would put in the top seven billion people, of people responsible for what happened in Rochdale. Sall is a hero. You have not given any evidence of being such. Please correct me if I am wrong, what have you done, to be seen as anything approaching her campaigning spirit, give evidence, she put her head above the parapet, what have you done,
    2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. ​​​​​ @ProfessorChaos1349 it's not misleading, intersex is not a sex, it's a perfectly normal, nothing to be ashamed about deviation from the regular wonder of the universe that is binary biological sex. Think how amazing it is that biological sex occurred from evolution, but as has been said multiple times, intersex in most cases it's just a deviation from the regular biologigy, and in a super small number of cases, harder to define, not that we have to, but it's not some brand new sex. I have nothing against you supporting trans rights, but the term woman, referred to biological women since the Neanderthals and before, the idea that a bunch of political activists can appropriate this term, is just not a goer, it's the most important terms in the lexicon in this field, whether youb are using the french, german or japanese equivalent, so in that way it is perfectly acceptable for a scientist to use it in the way he uses it, he does not have to tow a political line, of using language in the way a particular trans rights activist demands, more so as some even want to ban the term biological sex, and especially when so many sorts of things, on womens rights, and society would be affected if we just take the trans rights activist position, as paramount, and ignore every other aspect of society being affected by these issues. So no, Dawkins is right to use the words he uses, not obey the Orwellian newspeak of the more aggressive trans rights activists. He can use the term woman, in the way he intends. Ps you have the right to use the term woman in the way you wish, but don't have a right to impose your definition of the word on Dawkins, but feel free to use it in whatever way you wish. Why do trans rights activists feel it is their right to impose vast swathes of vocabulary and radically new definitions of extremely important words on society, I think they have a right to use words how they like, but it is obviously political and domineering to expect everybody else to accept new definitions of the word woman, or use terms like assigned at birth, when it's observed.
    2
  214. ​​​ @ProfessorChaos1349 nuanced, that's a word that's being misused here, in the sense that fox news or pro Highland clearances people start their sentences with the words, no it's more nuanced than you think, then proceed to say what they think, that expelling crofters was perfectly ok, or trump's mean remarks on a issue should be forgotten. It's the same here, you say it's nuanced, but just say the inaccurate idea that sex is not binary as of intersex, when intersex is clearly not a sex. Also to appropriate the term woman, a term that has existed since the Neanderthals, and to not massively caveat the consequences of this, is either deliberately spin doctor style wrong, or super naive, . The way you use the word nuanced, is like someone at a party saying to the twenty other guests, well may I in a more nuanced way have all the birthday cake for myself. Clearly the trans activist position is to claim biological sex is a impossible to understand muddied thing, that is meaningless, so the only definition we should use to define gender is self id, or a version of that, when on reality, biological sex clearly exists and for well over ninety nine percent of people is a prime detail of them, so to deny it's importance is extremist and naive. And what about when biological males have gender affirming care, to be more like biological women, a sex change operation, and such, all this proves the whole idea of a woman is based on the proven reality of biological sex existence, and to deny it's importance is just a denial of rational observations.
    2
  215. I think trans rights at its most extreme is nothing to do with feminism, in fact its quite the opposite, its people were assigned at birth male, expecting everybody to see them and their world view as what matters most, if anything its quite a pompous macho assertiveness. Also i think it actually descended off lgb rights activism, for 2 main reasons, what happened was, just like heterosexuals have various ways of being hetero, so do gay men, and some gay men see a varied gender spectrum element as important to their sexualities, so they see trans rights as integral to their sexuality, and identity, they are such a strong element of the lgb community, that this became a gay rights issue, then even though many gay men have a version of homosexuality, which is different, and sees the biological divides in sex as being fundemental to their, sexuality, these gays are ignored by what have become lgbt groups, then of course some lesbians care even more so seeing, the fundemental divides of biological sex as wholly important to them, then they were the free core of fighting intelectually against extreme trans rights in britain. They allied to a rump element of the right on this issue, and some free thinking figures on the intellectual left. The reason extreme trans rights did so well in the 2010s, was as gay rights was a massive left right political issue on the west till then, but then in the left wing Victory on gay marriage ,i believe the right surrendered, like iraqis to the Americans in the gulf war, or germans to the allies in 1945, and what had been a hard fought war of attrition became total abject absolute total surrender, so even right wing institutions surrendered totally on trans rights with no debate. The debate was picked up, and now even the centre left agree with much of the gender critical line, even after having voted aspects of trans rights through with no debate whatsoever. I mean we should have a world for all, that loves everyone, whoever they are, but most agree biological sex exists.
    2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. ​​​​ @madnezz1961 But that is the massive thing that we are talking about. What language should I use instead, please tell me, as I feel there is a legitimate argument against some of the alternative terms. What terms should I use instead. I think if I said trans woman, it would sound like I think trans women should not be in women's.sport as they are trans, which is not so, the reason people oppose trans women in women's sports, is nothing what so ever to do with them being trans it's the the fact biologicl sex exists. And it's utterly unfair for you to say I must use language which misinterprets the reason I am giving. It should not be classed as transphobic for someone to say biological sex when that's what they are talking about. It's utterly unfair and mean to demand I change my language to suit one point of view. It's like in newspeak when they tried to ban some words so it would be impossible to even think a different way to the ingsoc orthodoxy. It's so unfair for this to be your demand, and your calling transphobic for just saying something that biological sex exists, which everybody says even trans activists accept, its just so mean and unfair. We don't hate trans people, we just say biological sex exists and that is not hateful. I would never say anything mean to a trans person, I would try to make them feel comfortable, and accept them, even used their pronouns, but you are saying I can't use a term, you accept exists, how do you square that, I try to be a good person, and hate bullies, but why do you try to make me feel guilty for using a term that you accept is true, and we all know is true. How can that be offensive. Please tell me. I mean if we use the term biological sex it does not in any way change someones gender does it. A trans woman is still the gender they choose, all that is happening is we are highlighting the issue of interest, the biological sex issue, which we all accept exists. And when that is the issue at hand it matters, if it is not the issue at hand it does not matter. It's like it would be mean for a NBA player to call me short all day, but if I kept asking why I can't reach the net, it would be ok to say, it's as I'm shorter than most NBA giants, if it's the issue at hand it's ok, if it's not, it's not, but in this issue it is. I mean think of it this way, when people oppose trans women in women's sports they don't oppose non binary women footballers, they do also oppose cis men in women's sports, it's nothing to do with them being trans, that makes them opposed to them being in women's sports, so it is utterly unfair for you to demand we use a term, that is not what our beliefs are about,vwe don't oppose trans women in women's sports as they are trans, or as they identify as women, we just want women's sport to be kept for a particular group, that can only be phrased in a way, that you are unfairly labelling as unacceptable language,even though you accept that such a group exists, the initials are b w, and it's not a offensive term in the context of this debate, as it's what we are talking about.
    2
  290. ​​​​​​​​​ @madnezz1961 I mean like this, if someone says they object to trans women in women's sports z and some says why, isn't it ok, how do they say it in clear English. How can that be said in a way you tolerate as acceptable. Surely the only way you can say it is to mention biological sex, which you accept exists, just like it's sometimes ok to say someone is tall, or short, but not to say it all the time, like when you are ordering food at a MacDonalds etc. how can we debate these topics if done the language being used, essential to one sides argument is banned, when it's not in itself offensive. It's not a gratuitous thing to mention, when it's the whole nature of what one side is saying. It's completely unreasonable for you to demand we use your language when that language distorts what we are saying. You may be right, you may be wrong, maybe trans women should be in women's.sport and safe spaces either wholly or partially, but it's unfair to take away the language we use which explains what we believe, when even you agree those factors are true, I mean that's unreasonable. I say we should love trans people, but it's ok to debate the nuances of laws and how they Impa ct everyone, in a participating democracy I would not minid if friend or relative or the pm or anynody was trans, or even a royal, or the two guys here, all I am saying is its ok to sensibly debate the nuances.of this issue, and it not hateful to do so. Love to you, and great happiness to you. And happiness to trans people as well.
    2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. Listen well my kin, reality does not yield to wishes, nor does proof bend to the tides of opinion, biological sex exists, it is not a shadow not a fleeting Notion, but an enduring fact of life, male and female are not identities plucked from the air, they are the result of millenia of adapting written into a very being guiding the essence of Life itself. But now my brothers and sisters we see an alarming tale and folding. The words of women biological woman who speak with courage and clarity are being met not with dialogue but with venom they are called hateful for daring to speak the truth they are branded with vile names accused of cruelty when all they seek his fairness and protecting for themselves and their daughters so we stand by their voices are drowned out. What madness has gripped this land when the safety of women in space is meant for them their shelters their sports their private places is considered expendable in the name of a distorted ideology. Compassion does not mean ignoring reality kindness does not mean ignoring reality..to call this truth hateful if to deny reason itself even have saved us all yes but biology is not a trivial detail women's rights have been hard one fought with blood sweat and tears and we dishonor their struggles by turning away their concerns protecting the rates and dignity of women is not an attack on anyone it is an act of Justice. We must not be cowed by the search of those who demand complaints at the cost of reason to stand for truth is not cruelty to protect the rights of women is not hatred it is strength it is fairness and it is a very foundation of the society that values both reality and kindness we must support Richard Dawkins JK Rowling Graham Lincoln and all the others.😮
    2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 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
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. ​​​​​​​​​​ @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
  317. ​​ @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
  318. 2
  319. ​ @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
  320. ​​​​​​​​​​ @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
  321. 2
  322. ​​​​ @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
  323. 2
  324. ​​​​​​ @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
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. ​​​​​​​​​ @denzellmovies good correction, it was someone called Zoey tur, who made that threat to shapiro. i am not saying running a marathon is masculine, but running 50 of them, to great acclaim, is not a famously effeminate activity. The whole idea of the word feminine is based on the idea biological women exist, and things they do are classed as feminine, things biological men do are classed as masculine, if a biological male behaves very masculine, and macho, but his brain waves are similar to a woman's usual brain waves, and maybe some of these such folk believe they are women, and some believe they are men, what should society do. I say we still accept biological sex exists, and is very important, and it's ok to accept it's important in policy making.the problem with your argument is that plenty of biological males who identify as women, who are actually as macho as most other biological males, so whats the big deal about the brain waves, why does that mean anything. Are you agreeing that if a biological male identifies as a woman, and his brain waves and patterns are similar to a woman's, then it certainly does not mean that he will be more inclined to statistically feminine traits in personality, of on average being much less aggressive, and certainly won't be the case he shall automatically a kind of shrinking violet, dainty feminine jane austen character lady, stuck in a biological males body. I am not being mean there, but if you look a trans rights campaigners and their aggressiveness, it's often far more macho than feminine, correct me if i am wrong. I mean I like izzard who is a great comedian, and labourite, but I remember one of izzards shows had a bit, where izzard was rightly proud of fighting back some thugs who made some homophobic bullying remarks towards said izzard,, while look at Riley gaines, when she had some aggressive bullies surrounding and intimidate her she did a normal feminine thing of seeking safety. I mean look at all these let women speak events where a bunch of middle aged female professors stand at a street corner just making a speech, and then tra activists make threats and come looking for a physical fight,, and have banners making terrible threats about what they dismissively and macho and dehumanisingly call terfs. Surely the brain waves or pattern thing does not change the reality, that biological sex exists.
    2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. ​​​​ @WoodTech9 who called him a Nazi, was it the judge, give a example. I thought that people just thought it was a insensitive remark, please give a example of someone who called him a Nazi, was it someone important, or just someone who nobody listens to. I did not like the joke as it made me think of horrible uncaring bullies, who say the worst things they can about people. I mean I know those people don't matter, but for someone to act like saying the most horrible thing you can about someone is some noble act is just monstrous. Couldn't he just have apologized for any hurt caused, and got on with his life, instead of acting like being the most offensive you can be is some freedom loving act. I think it's interesting the same people defending him for this joke, range from liberal free speech extremists, but also to far right people. I mean there is a guy on this comment section, and I have seen his comments on this subject before, who says wrongly, we fought on the wrong side in world war two. It happened when Jimmy carr made his horrible joke glorifying the Holocaust of gypsies, there were loads of people in the comments section, claiming it was all just a joke and being ironic, but just as many were horrible far right people, stating horrible things about gypsies, and seemingly agreeing with what supposedly was an ironic joke. To be honest, I think we can forgive dankula for his horrible joke, but it was not anything to be proud of. We all do silly things, I mean I have to stop swearing at the asda till machine, when it stops working, but I apologize. As I should. I think Peterson was a hero on the trans issue, but here I think he is being a ivory tower liberal. As you would expect of course none of these far-right pro free speech people ever get in a big huff if somebody is fired for criticising Trump, or the queen or Putin, which is what free speech is supposed to be for. Which shows their grand great hypocrisy. Did they get annoyed when trump sues people for saying stuff about him.
    2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. To be fair, the people obsessing over this the most are people who want to bring in what they call trans rights by stealth, the likes of jk Rowling and Helen Joyce and Richard Dawkins who are not at all right wing, are just reacting to very radical attempts at change, which otherwise would have been brought in by stealth, such as biological males in womens sports, convicted r@pists in womens prisons, and the astonishing fact that children under ten across the western world, out of nowhere are being taught tbat biological sex is a unimportant element of gender, when in reality its the whole reason we acknowledge its existance. We should love everyone, including trans, but to deny biological sex is important, when we are talking about gende is not a sensible view really, and it is right that people stood up and said the truth that there are serious and reasonable concerns mostly to do with womens rightds and safety, that we must acknowledge on this issue, and no amount of Orwellian newspeak, furious Orwellian bluster, and powder flam mantras can gloss over that. So we'll done Helen for mentioning these issues, and shame in anybody who says we should just let idealogy win over the needs of people who are affected by this issue. Biological sex exists and we just need to realise that and live life in a way and have rules that acknowledge the effect ts that causes on society. Jk Rowling is a good female rights campaigner. And think of all the homosexuals who agree with Helen, here is a list, arty, Andrew Doyle, Joanna Cherry, Martina Navaratalola, Douglas Murray, the list is very long, Elaine Miller and James Dreyfuss, and and the list goes on, and most of those are left wing. Why are you disagreeing with them, can you tolerate their views. This is a reasonable debate to have and if we did not have it, we would have biological males winning women's sport event, and in women's safe spaces. And really left wing views should be based on reality and facts, biological sex still exists, the fact has not changed, so we should have a society, that in a loving caring way realises that. It's not right wing to accept biological truth.
    2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. Well Ronson is great, and has done some fine stuff, fab fellow. But he kind of on this issue, some people critisise him for making a documentary on this issue, where the trans right activists were painted as all sweetness and light, and the concerns of the gender critical women, were not really given equal weight, it was kind of all, hey lets all come together on the angle the trans rights activists want. Which was quite typical of the current debate and way laws are enacted by centrist and centre left and even centre right parrties at the moment, (well untill the right and in Britain the left, realised its a vote winner, as GC ideas have credance and are right). And bizarely this was a place where there had been a murder by a extreme very untypical trans rights activist of a gender critical campaigner. I think it was the Dana Rivers case, it would be like doing a video on the troubles in Northern Ireland, and acting ;like only side had people who comnitted violence oir unfair acts, and that the othger side is all sweetness and light, which even many Sinn Fein or DUP supporters would kind of be a bit perplexed about. I mean I wish some kind of compromoise could be made, that accepts everybody, including gc requests, but I think even Ronson feels he has to apologise a bit, for missing the Rivers case from his documentary, so its understandable people are perplxed he made such a untypical Ronsson video, and probably media should be told, hey hang on here whats all this about when it misses major things. It would be like doing a documentary on World War Two, and painting the Americans as pure baddies, by just ignoring Pearl Harbour, and saying America declared war on Japan for no reason what so ever. Or a documentary on JFK visit to Dallas, that utterly ignores the assassination. The same here, I mean GC people have some concerns and certain people totally ignore their reasonings and act like they are just horrible bigots and even call them Nazis and bigots just for querying anything to do with this issue.
    2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. Andrew gold considers himself centrist and mainstream. He does not call himself right wing. You claimed wright is a paid influencer of the right, , you put in doubt his credentials, claim.ing he lacks mentions of intersex, even though if you watch his video, with Stephen knight, he talks about intersex the whole time. He knows this subject very well, and is honestly putting forwsrd a intelligent clear cut persuasive case. It is a very common thing for trans rights activists to try and bully and undermine people who criticize gender ideology beliefs, by claiming the person dies not know about intersex , when the person,whether it is Colin wright or Richard Dawkins knows more about intersex than the commenter does. I would definitely believe that trying to undermine someone by pretending they a expert on the field, don't know about something they do know about, is demeaning and bullying behavior. It is absolutely the case that trans rights activists do always try to undermine those who criticize gender ideology, by calling them far right, right wing or some such term, and they often try to undermine critics of gender idealogy, by lying about what they believe or calling I to question their credentials, often by lies about what the, the Richard Dawkins has never heard of intersex, is a common trans rights extremists lie, so sorry I have a antenna for knowing that a trans rights activist trope. All I am saying is don't bully, don't name call, just as people dont agree with you. He knows his stuff, and does not deserve bullying attempts to demean him. We all know trans rights activists often bully women who don't fall into line, saying the most atrocious sexist vile rubbish about them, sickening shameful stuff. This guy may wear glasses, but that don't make him a wimp, just like jk Rowling, he will stand up to orwellian bullies. Ps I am not saying trans people are bullies, I am saying that most trans activists and their supporters do bully, and that is proven, they try to drive out alternative options, and pile on guff, claiming anybody who does not agree with gender idealogy is a evil right winger,who should be quarantined as of they are terrible far right people. The jaw dropping reality, is gender critical people are treated by some media worse than actual far right people. Look at Wikipedia it bans the mention of biological sex, and it's definition of gender critical feminism is a hit job, filled with multiple mentions of the words, far right, right wing, hate, terf and all such. But it's arrticke on the most evil man in history, a h, of 1930s Germany mention s far right just once in reference to where he is in a photo. Shockingly it gives far right and racist views more freedom, than gender critical views. It disgracefully has a article on the n word, it describes far right peoples views in their own language, having quotations from a h, in the articles. It gives both sides of the view on the highland clearances, the proper view and the far right pro clearance view. But for gender critical feminism, it refuses to accept the language feminists use. So making their views unheard and utterly censored. The BBC and CNN allow extremists language, like assigned male at birth, as if it's some wild guess from a doctor what sex you are. If you search Google for biological sex, it lists condescending confused articles based on extreme gender idealogy, of denying the firmness of their being sex. There are even high up articles like titled myth of biological sex. You are wrong to ignore the arrogance of this orwellian idealogy, that denies glaring realitirs, all for the sake of a puritan style zealotry of the unthinking mantra of trans women are women, which is ok fir you to believe, but not fir you to have as the national slogan and devotion, the idealogical Puritanicalness of this neo quasi religious movement should be opposed like any other orwellian rubbish. Truth to power
    2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. But I dont think it was just that, I mean Ronson is great, and has done some fine stuff, fab fellow. But he kind of on this issue, some people critisise him for making a documentary on this issue, where the trans right activists were painted as all sweetness and light, and the concerns of the gender critical women, were not really given equal weight, it was kind of all, hey lets all come together on the angle the trans rights activists want. Which was quite typical of the current debate and way laws are enacted by centrist and centre left and even centre right parrties at the moment, (well untill the right and in Britain the left, realised its a vote winner, as GC ideas have credance and are right). And bizarely this was a place where there had been a murder by a extreme very untypical trans rights activist of a gender critical campaigner. I think it was the Dana Rivers case, it would be like doing a video on the troubles in Northern Ireland, and acting ;like only side had people who comnitted violence oir unfair acts, and that the othger side is all sweetness and light, which even many Sinn Fein or DUP supporters would kind of be a bit perplexed about. I mean I wish some kind of compromoise could be made, that accepts everybody, including gc requests, but I think even Ronson feels he has to apologise a bit, for missing the Rivers case from his documentary, so its understandable people are perplxed he made such a untypical Ronsson video, and probably media should be told, hey hang on here whats all this about when it misses major things. It would be like doing a documentary on World War Two, and painting the Americans as pure baddies, by just ignoring Pearl Harbour, and saying America declared war on Japan for no reason what so ever. Or a documentary on JFK visit to Dallas, that utterly ignores the assassination. The same here, I mean GC people have some concerns and certain people totally ignore their reasonings and act like they are just horrible bigots and even call them Nazis and bigots just for querying anything to do with this issue.
    2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. ​​ @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
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. ❤❤In most situations we don't need to care, but in some like women's safe spaces, and women's sports, it is unfair and has dangers to not acknowledge biological sex exists. Dawkins is also someone criticized for saying biological sex exists, but was friends with Jan Morris before most of his ignorant haters were born, he does NOT hate trans people, he has a intelligent nuanced view on the issue, supporting tolerance, within the confines, of accepting biological sex exists, not a puritan idealogical zealotry, of putting trans rights extremism above every human experience. The overbearing bullying arrogant aggressive mansplaining impervious macho nature of most extreme trans rights activists is indicative of sex differences, and why we need some recognition in laws and safeguarding that biological women exist, it's just glaring reality. Like me I can tell which people are men and which are women, evolution made that useful adaption for us. Love to all, ❤❤ we should oppose bullying of trans people, but it is ok to sensible nuanced laws which accept sex exists. Ps linehan was always a feminist to be fair, as to jk Rowling, look at her condenning the crushing of Iranian protesters, don't pretend that opposing racism, is not something that can't be believed in alongside protecting women's sports. Also many gay people, oppose extreme trans rights beliefs. Look at arty Morty, Andrew Doyle, David Starkey, the actor James Dreyfuss, Joanna cherry, Elaine miller, they are not homophobic. It's not good to be so blinkered on the nuances of this issue.
    1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. No, he is right. He is not half way to being wrong, he is just right. The problem with the sapolsky idea. Is that even if you believe that a biological male who identifies as a woman, identifies as a woman because they're brain tells them they are a woman. Maybe because their neurons are the same as a woman's neurons. Even then, the reality is, biological sex still exists. So in all sorts of statistics, biological males who identify as women offer the same risks as biological males who identify as males. So, yes a biological male may believe that he is a woman, but because of his instincts and so many things about him, then he has the same level of threat towards women as other biological males. Look at crime stats, trans women are closer to cis males, at many important crimes, per population. Whether it is certain violent crimes, or s🤒x offences, I I am not saying they are more of a threat. They are not more of a threat. Also in sports they have those advantages as well, and the rest of the population can see they have those advantages and certain personality traits, that biological males, who identify as men also have. Look at the debate here. Gender critical women debate like, by writing eight thousand page tomes, and sit at tables speaking like a jane Austin character, about why they want trans people to be respected, but biological sex exists, and has consequences on biological women and biological men, so biological women exist, while trans rights campaigners have Hamas style slogans, with threats against their opponents on banners, which also use dismissive terms about what they call the terfs we ho they are threatening. Then they try and ban people from having gender critical views, and label them in a dismissive macho way, like only really powerful aggressive biological males can do. Surely the reality is gender disphoria exists, but it does not stop biological sex and it's instincts existence.
    1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. ​​​​​​​​​ @jackspring7709 oh you campaigned, wouldn't it be great in a western movie if Charles Bronson when hearing about there being baddies stealing land has written a letter of complaint to a newspaper, or if a John wayne character had written a sternly worded comment on a video about a land buying in Chicago real estate, saying, well it's terrible some baddies did something in dodge city. That would have sorted all the problems out,vans if had blamed middle class ladies in New York for all the crime, in dodge city, the John Wayne character could have had a shorter movie, yes but actually done anything about it, but he could have felt proud he wrote so e YouTube comments. Let's be honest, you did very little, and called on other people, big strong men, to sort it out. I have nothing against men, good men are great, but we should protect women where we can and support them where we can, as women protect us men where they can. The same people who caused Rochdale, uncaring people, also did but care about women in the trans debate. And they included as many right wing populists as imaginary liberals. Where were you when the abuse happened, did you try and stop it, did you do anything other than send emails and blame powerless beautiful intelligent courageous driven middle class women, who are so powerless they lose court cases to people like who sal Glover lost her case to. Trans rights extremism, Jimmy Saville and the Rochdale abuse cases were caused by the mentality you are showing here, making excuses for the unfair things occurring, and saying it does not matter, you should be ashamed, that the mentality you are showing, allowed those terrible things to occur, shame on people who have the mentality you are showing here.
    1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. == Alba are Socially liberal, They are not that socially conservative, they are pro choice on abortion, support the Human Rights act, support same sex-marriage, they support penalties against hate speech, support refugees, support a allowance of Women to serve in combat roles, oppose Capital punishment, oppose national service, support limiting misinformation, oppose the House of Lords, encourage diversity training, oppose flag burning laws, the only thing they dont support is parts of the Gender reform acts, so they are really a Gender Critical Socialy Liberal party. :But you choose the sources and surely a objective look, would say they are very much the same as the SNP on most things, and really they are just a party of people out of favour with the SNP leadership, they are not conservative on anything, Salmond was thrown out of the SNP in the 80s for being too left wing, and Tommy Sheridan, a Militant anti poll tax socialist, is in it, and the Proclaimers, supported them. They have ex-SNP MPs like Ash Regan, surely its a Socially Liberal Gender Critical Party, of mainstream Centre Left economics, led by people who fell out of favour with the then SNP leadership.:A basic look at what they believe in, and understanding of what constitutes centre left and socially liberal, can you give me a list of socially conservative things they believe in, not to do with Gender Critical policies. Can you give a few examples of socially conservative policies they have, outside of GC views.
    1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. But I dont think it was just that, I mean Ronson is great, and has done some fine stuff, fab fellow. But he kind of on this issue, some people critisise him for making a documentary on this issue, where the trans right activists were painted as all sweetness and light, and the concerns of the gender critical women, were not really given equal weight, it was kind of all, hey lets all come together on the angle the trans rights activists want. Which was quite typical of the current debate and way laws are enacted by centrist and centre left and even centre right parrties at the moment, (well untill the right and in Britain the left, realised its a vote winner, as GC ideas have credance and are right). And bizarely this was a place where there had been a murder by a extreme very untypical trans rights activist of a gender critical campaigner. I think it was the Dana Rivers case, it would be like doing a video on the troubles in Northern Ireland, and acting ;like only side had people who comnitted violence oir unfair acts, and that the othger side is all sweetness and light, which even many Sinn Fein or DUP supporters would kind of be a bit perplexed about. I mean I wish some kind of compromoise could be made, that accepts everybody, including gc requests, but I think even Ronson feels he has to apologise a bit, for missing the Rivers case from his documentary, so its understandable people are perplxed he made such a untypical Ronsson video, and probably media should be told, hey hang on here whats all this about when it misses major things. It would be like doing a documentary on World War Two, and painting the Americans as pure baddies, by just ignoring Pearl Harbour, and saying America declared war on Japan for no reason what so ever. Or a documentary on JFK visit to Dallas, that utterly ignores the assassination. The same here, I mean GC people have some concerns and certain people totally ignore their reasonings and act like they are just horrible bigots and even call them Nazis and bigots just for querying anything to do with this issue.
    1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. ​​​​ @stevel9914 he killed millions, caused a war that killed 40 million, I mean come off it. I oppose crazy ridiculous extreme trans rights ideas, but it's not as bad as AH. Ah regime did murderous experiments on live twins, and killed children as of their race. It was a million times worse than even gender idealogy. They put opposing nations soldiers in camps, and slave labour, of which many died, they bombed cities from Guernica to Coventry. They invaded over a dozen countries in Europe in just a few years. They fired Jewish people from their jobs to such a crazy extent, that some of those Jews were genius level people who sided Oppenheimer. And are you now saying ah was pro christian, I thought most feel he was a typical mid Century agnostic. The swastika was a kind of pre Christian symbol, they were not Christians. Also in the end the wars ah caused saw russia run riot over Germany. So it was not even a good thing for his ideas. I mean as of ah crazy ideas, and foolish decision to invade Russia, by a few years Germans were brutally expelled from lands where they had lived for centuries. All because of ah macho dream of lebensraum. His wat loving, imperialist ideas were appalling. And weirdly ironically some of ah people actually did forced experiments on people against their will, even worse than the worst of gender idealogy. And going on about porn, well he was not that great a figure in terms of Christian sexual norms. He had a affair with a relative of his, geli raubal, has sex before marriage, and three of his lovers killed themselves. I mean that's hardly normal. Also what's your view on ah friend rohm. Here is a weird fact, the ussr banned homosexuality in 1933 as they associated it with German millitarism, what a weird fact. Anyway, I don't think banning gay porn, is a good excuse for the nazis. Also mainstream anti trump GOP guys like Kemp have cut down gender idealogy. And ps there were lots of Germans on the good side on the war, fighting with the US army, like Eisenhower.
    1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. I don't support trump. I think we should accept trans people in our society, and I myself would have no problem working with someone who was trans, just the way Dawkins was friendly with Jan Morris, I would even be happy to use people's pronouns. What I find reprehensible is the aggressive overbearing nature of trans rights activists on certain nuanced issues. Let'sook at women's safe spaces, we should not call women, or the men who support those women bigots just for arguing that there are some points in favor of biologicl males, or trans women, using women's safe spaces. It's a legitimate debate. The same goes for women's sports. If we have women's sports, surely it is not because of cultural differences between men and women, surely it is as of differences in biology. And just calling someone a bigot, as they disagree with you, is so unreasonable. I think arguing for trans rights is a perfectly legit thing to do in a democracy, but why are so many trans rights activists, so aggressive and abusive, virtually every time they comment, they have some abusive remark aimed at who they speak to. All they do is shout bigot, which is not a argument, it just pushes people away from your side, antagonizes them. Most people today could not care less if a biological male wears women clothes and identifies as a woman, do what you like, but trans rights activists online, are just rude, and abusive. I mean come on, if course some people are going to debate these issues, don't just call them bigots, well good day to you, and what insult have you got for me next, love to you, love to trans people, love to all people, but hey come on what abusive remark have got for me, ps I don't like bullying or rude people., have you got any respect for others, or are you just going to insulte​ @themaestro3034 
    1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. Putin invaded Ukraine, and you can't blame them for the Israeli Palestine war, what do you think they should have done, just surrender to Russia and Iran. I mean you can believe that if you wish, but surely they are just following post war policy on Ukraine, and us policy on Israel, it's not their fault Hamas did October the 7th, or that Israel was recognized by the USA decades ago. I mean they are not war mongers, they never invaded anywhere, and looks like Iran and the Palestinians fear trump more which is why they gave up the hostages just before he arrived, before he gave Israel even bigger weapons and the green light to be even tougher. I mean Biden has almost let the taleban and Yemen do what they like, gnd has not been invading them either. I think the only place you have a argument is Israel , but even there if USA did not give Israel weapons, it would probably see some mass invasion the other way around, and horrific expulsions , so it's difficult to say what to do there. The thing I find annoying is Iran and Russia supposedly launched their attacks as they thought Biden is a weakling, when he showed that he was not prepared to just let allies be walked all over. Then when Trump comes to power, threatening a madman tactic, all these horrible dictators say, ok boss, we will free the hostages, and give you what you like sir. Even Yemen, they never attacked Israel, Biden makes the Saudis stop attacking it, and lifts sanctions on Iran, so Iran and Israel decides well that's the time to attack. I mean what's the point, so on that case, internationalism and being nice is not rewarded, only horrible psycho brinkmanship is seen as acceptable by these anti Western powers. But surely the problem with that, is either you always surrender, like trump did in Afghanistan, or you act bellicose and cause a war, like Germany in world war one. I think internationalism is right, but you can't just lay down to invaders surely.
    1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. ​ @Cardinal_Hordriss that was a very long essay, and I have not the time to answer all. It's too tiring. But gender critical people do not want to oppress trans people. Dawkins and Rowling are not calling them freaks, they would treat them politely and as human beings,. Like he did to Jan Morris, All they are saying is biological sex exists, and has consequences, and law should therefore be structured with that reality in mind. A biological male who identifies as a female is much a threat to women, as a biological male who identifies as a man. Also I would say be who you want to be, but also accept biological sex exists. I condemn anybody who bullies people for being trans, but gender critical feminists have a problem with trans biological males who identify as women in women's sport as of them being biological males, not as they are trans. Also to be honest I would say the people at the bottom of society in many ways, below trans, in terms of their treatment are the homeless, the severely mentally challenged, the severely disabled, some criminals, some victims of crimes even after the crimes , afghan women, thelidimdide sufferers and the like, i mean look on the bright side. On some things trans are actually quite elite, like there were three trans roman emperors, so let's not pretend you are like pathetic creatures, your not treated like jennifer Lawrence or arnie in their prime, but few of us are. I get called horrible names as well, but I don't twist this into reasons to blame nice people like jk Rowling.
    1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. ​​​​​​​ @CarlLo-mein-k3i all the evidence indicates that racists usually have low iqs, while anti racism people like Oppenheimer or Dawkins or such like have high iqs. Have you ever talked to people from various races, there is no way in a million years that IQs are substantially different for different races. I have lived a long time, and talked to people of different races, and there is not one , that to me stands out as all are mostly super intelligent, and there is not one that stands out as particularly stupid. I think IQs are remarkably similar worldwide, other than educational systems. Ps bringing in the chip on your shoulder rubbish, does not wash with me, it's just boring and the fact that the huge chip on your shoulder poor me stuff you trot out is your main obsession indicates that. Just talk to people of different races, and you will find your theory on IQ has no semblance in day to day reality. You can believe there were colonial injustices, and historical effects, without believing that certain groups need to be classed as evil. I don't think white people or East Asians are evil, but do realise, that history has effects on some places being richer or poorer. All you have to do is talk to people of other races, and it's clear. Also in the modern globalized world most advances are by globally sourced egg heads in top universities. A d you misunderstood what the word equality means, like in 1984, when ingsoc try to ban the word, and make it mean the same as same. It does not mean that, it means respecting all as equal citizens in certain situations, with certain caveats like law, or some such. Which most would want for them self. If you talk to people of different races, you will see there is not the huge difference you want to believe in. It's not me being politically correct, it's just what I have experienced in life, your theory that different races have naturally different levels of IQ, does not hold up to every day experience, and life. The reason most clever people dont agree with you, is the opposite of what you believed was proven to be true, by reality.
    1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. ​​​ @lucuslopez6866 but in reality it is not at all bigoted to accept the glaring reality that biological sex exists. The only reason why we say such a status as a woman exists, is because there are biological woman and biological men. The concept did not just crop out of thin air or a 19th century thinkers political arguments. The only reason why some biological males believe they are woman is because there were biological woman in the first place for them to believe they are the same as. Even if you believe that trans women are women then you still have to acknowledge that there is such a thing that is distinct from trans women which is biological woman. Just like a rose is still a rose still as sweet still as beautiful even if it were not called a rose. Biological woman still exist distinct from trans women even if you have a terminological sleight of hand like claiming trans women are women. The whole reason we have safeguarding laws to protect women is because of the existence of biological women and the existence and urges of biological males. It is in no sense bigoted to accept that those safeguarding rules still have to exist even if you have a orwellian terminological sleight of hand like claiming trans women are women. It is not right wing or bigoted to accept the glaring reality that biological woman and biological sex exists, it is socially just and coherent to have laws that protect biological woman and understands the reality that there is such a thing as biological sex so we must protect biological woman, and the rights of biological woman, and it has also good for biological males because it's accepting the reality and accepting the truth of the world is always better than living in living in an understanding that is absolutely faulty. And by absolutely faulty I mean pretending that biological woman don't exist as a separate category from trans woman. Please do not be intolerant and do not be orwellian, please be more understanding that there are people with different beliefs to you and different understandings of how the world works. It is not bigoted to accept the glaring reality that biological women are clearly in some important and highly noticeable and identifiable and glaring and effectual sense a distinct category from trans women, indeed if we have laws we should and must accept the reality of biological women existing ❤❤❤..
    1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. ​​​ @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
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1