Mother, should I build the wall?

[Scooter]

Let's see if a diagram will help those having trouble with the concept.

This is a trans man who was born with and still possesses all of the equipment necessary to conceive, carry and deliver a baby:

636-1x.jpg (30.13 KiB) Viewed 1419 times

If and when he should choose to give birth, is anyone seriously going to claim that he should be considered a "mother"?

[Joe Guy]

Let's see if a diagram will help those having trouble with the concept.

This is a trans man who was born with and still possesses all of the equipment necessary to conceive, carry and deliver a baby:

[photo]Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!![/photo]

If and when he should choose to give birth, is anyone seriously going to claim that he should be considered a "mother"?

The issue in the article I've been addressing is the move to replace the word "Mother" with "parent who has given birth".

They don't need to replace anything. They need to add a new term.

[Scooter]

It's not replacing "mother". It's creating a term that, where required by context, includes mothers and those who give birth who cannot be called mothers.

"Mother" will still presumably be used whenever it refers only to those who can be called mothers.

[Bicycle Bill]

Or, we could just be precise and inclusive by using a term that applies to both women and men who give birth, rather than muddle the waters further. And contrary to the pearl clutchers, that doesn't require removing the word "mother" from the lexicon where it is appropriately used.

Some people won't be satisfied until it's reduced down to merely "sperm donor" and "ovum provider".

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

Some people can't help showing that they would feel more at home in the Stone Age.

[Joe Guy]

It's not replacing "mother". It's creating a term that, where required by context, includes mothers and those who give birth who cannot be called mothers.

"Mother" will still presumably be used whenever it refers only to those who can be called mothers.

The article specifically refers to banning the word mother. It says:

Its latest advice, to ban the word 'mother' has sparked a backlash.......

which leads me to believe they're against using the word 'mother' even when it's the correct term.

[Scooter]

Oh please, it's the Telegraph, of course they are going to characterize it in the most pearl clutch inducing way possible.

[Joe Guy]

Oh... and btw... FIFM....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Let's see if a diagram will help those having trouble with the concept.

This is a trans man who was born with and still possesses all of the equipment necessary to conceive, carry and deliver a baby:

If and when he should choose to give birth, is anyone seriously going to claim that he should be considered a "mother"?

I'd add a word after "mother" . . . well, no I wouldn't but it is disgusting.

Yes, I seriously state that etc etc. Fact: this person could not give birth in their current testosterone-laden condition. It's not just a question of genitalia and internal organs - there is also the matter of hormones and some other moans. There would have to be major medical intervention to reverse the "+ to arrow" process before this person could successfully carry a child to term.

Poor bloody child

[Gob]

Ridiculing attempts to be trans inclusive is absolutely transphobic. So sorry if it wounds your cisgender fragility to point that out.

So any attempt to be "trans-inclusive" is valid, and not in any way ridiculous. Got it.

Any attempt to point out the stupidity of anyone who is attempting to be "trans-inclusive" is a display of fragility. Got it.

When does the book burning start?

[Gob]

Let's see if a diagram will help those having trouble with the concept.

This is a trans man who was born with and still possesses all of the equipment necessary to conceive, carry and deliver a baby:


If and when he should choose to give birth, is anyone seriously going to claim that he should be considered a "mother"?

That is a woman, who has adopted male persona but stil is genetically a woman. If s/he choose to give birth then people should be allowed to call him/her a mother.

[Gob]

Since its 1989 inception in response to a ban on the “promotion of homosexuality” by schools and councils in section 28 of the Local Government Act, Stonewall has been a part of every major struggle for LGBT rights in the UK. But in the past few weeks it has become embroiled in a toxic row.

A founding member has accused it of taking an “extremist stance”, a report accused it of giving incorrect advice on equality law and a cabinet minister was reported to be pushing for all government departments to withdraw from its Diversity Champions programme, which the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) quit last month.

Each controversy has been linked – directly or indirectly – to its position on trans rights, which critics believe is over-aggressive and seeks to shut down debate but which the charity and its defenders believe is putting it on the right side of history.

The right to change one’s legal gender was established in the UK in the 2004 Gender Recognition Act but it was only six years ago that Stonewall announced that it would work for trans equality and apologised for its past failure to do so. Its change of stance has coincided with a period in which the debate, between trans rights campaigners on one side and gender-critical feminists – who disagree with the view that gender identity should be prioritised over biological sex – on the other, has become increasingly fraught and polarised.

A year ago, in her first interview after taking over as Stonewall’s chief executive, Nancy Kelley told the Observer that following criticism of her predecessor the organisation would no longer seek to persuade its critics to accept its views on gender but would focus on “changes that make trans lives easier”.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... r-identity

Get with the program Stonewall, anything trans-inclusive is not to be criticised, no matter how fucking loony it is!


ETA: Here we go...

An accountant working for a gender-critical feminist group in Scotland has been charged in relation to allegedly homophobic and transphobic tweets in a case that has been seized on as an exemplar of the apparent clash between free speech and transgender rights.

Marion Millar, from Airdrie, was bailed to appear at Glasgow sheriff court next month. Millar works at For Women Scotland, a group that brought a legal challenge against the Scottish government in January over its definition of “woman” in an act to improve gender representation on public boards.

The case has already gained wide attention among those who believe women’s rights and free speech are under attack from people who want to privilege transgender rights.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... bic-tweets

The intolerance of the woke is now getting some muscle...

[Scooter]

That is a woman, who has adopted male persona but stil is genetically a woman.

And there it is. I thought that any issues you had with trans people were about the stuff around the margins. I never took you for someone who would align yourself with all the knuckle draggers in denying their fundamental identity.

That's just disappointing; I thought better of you.

[Gob]

Then you thought wrong of me*, but still do not dispute what I said. That person is a woman, s/he choose to identify as a man, and has made efforts to appear as a man. But s/he is a woman, how could s/he give birth otherwise? Men cannot give birth.

You chose to see him/her as a woman, I choose to recognise that s/he is still, genetically and biologically, a woman. It's OK to have different opinions, I do not think any less of you for your view.

*A shame, but I should stick to my own morality.

[MajGenl.Meade]

You are correct Gob and Scooter is just ignoring science and facts in favor of his bias, hypocrisy and bigotry.

Speaking as a knuckle-dragger, I have no problem defending and supporting the right of transgender people to equal treatment under the law. I oppose the debasement of language to mean what it does not mean.

A short description of "person who gives birth" is "mother". One word. Quite sufficient. For some reason, Scooter wants to argue AGAINST that but provides an example of a grotesque naked picture (modern day freak show*) which he calls male yet asserts CAN be a "mother". His logic is the same as lib's declaration that Biden is a would-be dictator and then chastises the President for not dictating.

Women give birth. Men do not. People with wombs give birth (if they wish and can). People without wombs cannot, no matter what (self?) delusion they er . . . labor under.

*I am jealous of the size of that penis though

[Gob]

I oppose the debasement of language to mean what it does not mean.

Dear god, get your white hood and flaming cross ready, why don't you?

You do know you're not allowed to think those things...

[Gob]

Stonewall risks all it has fought for in accusing those who disagree with it of hate speech.

Ok, who at the Grauniad has been reading my posts?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I oppose the debasement of language to mean what it does not mean.

Dear god, get your white hood and flaming cross ready, why don't you?

You do know you're not allowed to think those things...

and for the Grauniad

[Econoline]

This is a trans man who was born with and still possesses all of the equipment necessary to conceive, carry and deliver a baby:

The most absolutely wonderful thing about that image is the scenario in which he legally *MUST* use the WOMEN's washroom in some jurisdiction with a "bathroom bill" on the books.

[Scooter]

When you ask supporters of those bills if they would want him using the same bathroom as their daughters, none of them can say yes with a straight face.